Collaboration or business?. Collaborative consumption. From value for users to a society with values - OCU

Collaborative consumption:
From value for users
to a society with values
COLLABORATION
OR BUSINESS?

Credits
Research is product of the joint efforts of the following
organisations:
OCU (Coordination)
Amaya Apesteguía (Project Coordination), Rubén
Cabrerizo and Silvia Sánchez
Altroconsumo
Eliana Guarnoni and Antonietta Agostinelli
Deco Proteste
Antonieta Duarte, Ana Almeida and Sofía Lima
Test-Achats / Test-Aankoop
Christian Rousseau, Christophe Rossini, France Kowalsky
and Guy Sermeus
Cibersomosaguas (Universidad Complutense):
Ángel Gordo, Javier de Rivera and María Avizanda
Ouishare (Advisor)
Albert Cañigueral and Luis Tamayo
“Let the users speak: they give CC the thumbs up”
Consumers’ survey: Rubén Cabrerizo (supervisor),
Marco Anelli, Ana Almeida, Christophe Rossini and Guy
Sermeus.
“CC & the Law: a safe legal environment for
participants?” Legal Research: Leonardo Puebla
(supervisor), Rosa Guirado (methodological coordination),
Avv. Constanza Martino, Studio legale Missaglia, Sofía
Lima and Anne-Lise Evrard.
“Measuring the impact of CC” & “CC Platforms:
from utility to community” Social Research: Amaya
Apesteguía (supervisor), Ángel Gordo (main researcher
for the methodological design, field research, analysis
and scientific report), Javier de Rivera (field research,
analysis and scientific report), María Avizanda (desk and
delphi research), Eliana Guarnoni, Antonieta Duarte and
Christian Rousseau.
Edition: Cristina Olmeda
English proofreading & edition: Paul Cassidy
Design and layout: Abel Guzmán / colectivomelon.com
"COLLABORATION OR BUSINESS?
From value for users to a society
with values" is a project
sponsored and developed by four
european consumer organisations
(OCU, Altroconsumo, Deco
Proteste and Test-Achats/Test-
Aankoop) with the aim of raising
European consumers’ awareness
of the impact of collaborative
consumption.
Collaborative Consumption: Collaboration or business? 2

Index
CREDITS ............................................................................................................................. 2
INDEX ................................................................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 4
GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................... 7
INTRO ................................................................................................................................. 8
COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION: A NEW FRONTIER? .............................................. 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 8
What is collaborative consumption? ...................................................................................................... 8
A complex phenomenon ........................................................................................................................ 11
CC: a potential game changer? .............................................................................................................. 11
Or CC is not such a fair play? ................................................................................................................ 12
Evaluating platforms .............................................................................................................................. 13
LET THE USERS SPEAK .................................................................................................. 15
01.1. Results from a survey of 8,670 consumers ................................................................................. 15
01.2. Participation in CC initiatives: More than 70% of respondents had engaged in CC ........................... 16
01.3. Reasons for participating in CC initiatives: economic benefits and practicality ............................. 25
01.4. Barriers to participation in CC initiatives ................................................................................... 26
01.5. Users' opinions on CC participation: A safe and satisfactory experience ........................................ 27
01.6. Complaints about participating in on-line CC activities ........................................................... 29
01.7. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 30
CC & THE LAW: A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR USERS? ............................................... 31
02.1. Collaborative platforms: a two-level relationships ........................................................................ 31
02.2. Users and platforms ...................................................................................................................... 33
02.3. Prosumers' obligations ................................................................................................................... 34
02.4. Consumer rights ............................................................................................................................. 34
02.5. Legal Evaluation of CC Platforms ................................................................................................. 35
02.6. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 38
MEASURING THE IMPACT OF CC: WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY… ............... 39
03.1. A time for metrics: The triple impact of Collaborative Consumption .............................................. 39
03.2. Delphi Results: consultation with experts on the triple impact of CC ............................................. 41
03.3. Survey of CC Platforms: Too soon for transparency ...................................................................... 44
03.4. Results of Platforms' Survey: Economic, social, and environmental impact assessment ................ 45
03.5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 51
PLATFORMS: FROM UTILITY TO COMMUNITY ............................................................ 53
04.1. A social netnography of platforms ............................................................................................... 53
04.2. Platform performance on social dimensions .............................................................................. 54
04.3. Typologies: community, network, and transaction platforms ........................................................... 57
04.4. Case studies: illustrative examples of different approaches to CC ................................................... 60
04.5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 63
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MORE AND BETTER COLLABORATION ........................ 64
ANNEX 1: LEGAL PROTOCOL EXAMPLE ..................................................................... 66
ANNEX 2: NETNOGRAPHIC SOCIAL PROTOCOL ....................................................... 67
NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE ........................................................................................ 69

Summary
Some crucial questions: Is CC creating value for
individuals and for society?
Four consumers associations - Altroconsumo (Italy),
DECO-Proteste (Portugal), OCU (Spain) and Test-Achats/
Test Aankoop (Belgium) - came together to undertake
a pioneering research project on the CC phenomenon
from the point of view of its effect on consumers and
society. In undertaking this research we set out a series
of questions that we thought were important to resolve:
1. Do P2P collaborative consumption platforms add
value for individual consumers?
2. Are CC platforms a safe environment for users?
3. Do P2P CC platforms produce the beneficial impacts
that some claim they do at economic, social and
environmental levels? Are they creating value for
society as a whole?
4. Does the CC phenomenon represent a paradigm
change or is it just a different way of doing the
same business?
In order to help with these difficult questions we invited
CiberSomosaguas Research Group from University
Complutense of Madrid (UCM) to collaborate on the
design and implementation of part of the research. We
also sought the participation of Ouishare, as independent
CC experts, to consult and provide advice on the project.
A pioneering research project
The research employed a multi-method design that
involved ‘consumers’, ‘platforms’ and ‘experts’. The
research included 33 CC experts, over 8,600 consumers
(CC users and non-users), and a sample of 70 P2P CC
platforms across the four participating countries:
-- Consumers’ (users and non-users of CC) survey: a
survey of over 8,600 citizens and CC users, including
the general population, consumer association
members and platform users.
-- Delphi research with CC experts and a survey of
platforms: Firstly, a detailed and exhaustive research
process was conducted to identify key impact
indicators in collaboration with 33 CC experts. On the
basis of the Delphi research an on-line questionnaire
was developed and sent to 70 CC platforms, however
only 26 responded.
-- An observational study of the legal dimensions of
CC platforms: Using a bespoke observational protocol,
researchers evaluated 70 CC platforms on the basis of
a series of legal issues.
-- A Netnographic study of the social and interactive
dimensions of CC platforms: Using a completely
original instrument researchers evaluated the
systems and content of 70 CC platforms for
functionality, virtual reputation, monitoring and
community footprint.
Consumers’ survey: users give CC the “thumbs up”
The survey questionnaire was designed to establish CC
awareness levels, participation rates, reasons for and
barriers to participation, and satisfaction levels. The
analysis revealed a number of important findings:
1. Amongst the general population, awareness of CC
is high.
2. 70% of respondents had participated in at least one
CC activity. However, it should be remembered that
CC isn’t just a digital (on line) phenomenon; peers
also exchange and share goods and services off line.
3. Consumers’ reasons for participating in CC are
diverse, but the two most mentioned are economic
(saving or earning money) and for practical reasons
(flexible hours, better meets needs, easier, etc.).
4. The greatest barriers to participation relate to a
lack of knowledge about these initiatives or the
fact that some people have not yet considered
participating in CC.
5. Satisfaction with CC experiences is very high.
There are no significant differences between
satisfaction with on-line and off-line CC
experiences.
Carpooling, P2P accommodation, repair cafés, bartering
networks, social eating and micro-task sites are
just some of the Collaborative Consumption (CC)
activities and services that have exploded onto the
public consciousness over the last decade. Driven by
technological innovation, some of these ventures have
become well known for their run-away international
success and others for their ability to mobilise citizens
at local level, but all signal a change in the consumption
habits of citizens.
The trend is shifting from a conventional Business-to-
Consumer (B2C) model, where the providers of goods and
services are always commercial companies, to a Peer-
to-Peer (P2P) model based on direct exchanges between
consumers. Under this new paradigm a user on a CC
platform can adopt the role of a consumer and/or act
as a non-professional provider (also called a prosumer).
This is the area of specific interest to this research,
where we define CC as consumption activities conducted
between peers (Peer-to-Peer–P2P), through symmetric
consumption relationships.
Although much has been written about the promise
of CC and its potential benefits, it is a largely under-
researched area and relatively little is known about
its true impact of on society, the economy and the
environment. An issue we seek to address with the
publication of this report.

6. Only a small percentage of respondents reported
being dissatisfied. Reasons for dissatisfaction vary,
but there seemed to be very few serious conflicts.
7. The most common way for participants to deal
with problems is to do nothing. However, when
action was taken (apart from dealing directly with
the other party), it did not appear to be particularly
effective in solving the conflict.
Legal evaluation of CC platforms: too much complexity
and too much variance in legal compliance
The research started by compiling all the laws
and regulations relevant to CC activities. The legal
environment is extremely complex due to the variety
of applicable laws, which depend on the status of the
parties involved, and also because CC establishes a
two level relationship: firstly, there is the relationship
between the user and the platform, which is governed
by e-service and e-commerce regulations, and then the
relationship between users (peers) themselves, where
the civil code applies. Additionally, the participation
of professional providers on CC platforms adds to
the complexity, as consumer protection laws become
relevant and must be enforced.
In overall terms, we concluded that Peer-to-Peer CC
shouldn’t be over-regulated. In fact P2P relationships
would probably benefit from being deregulated and
simplified. In Business-to-Consumer (B2C) relationships,
the existing consumer protection regulations should
be reinforced at institutional level and be respected by
professional CC providers and platforms.
The observational study of the legal dimensions
undertook to evaluate if the platforms were in
compliance with legislation regarding “privacy and data
protection” and also to establish if platforms assumed
“responsibility for the service provided”.
-- Privacy and data protection: Overall, the research
found a high degree of divergence between platforms
in relation to privacy and data protection obligations.
Many platforms don’t provide complete and
detailed information on data protection and cookie
legislation. Furthermore, many platforms operating
across international borders don’t provide the
required information in the language of the country
of operation. An improvement in CC platforms'
compliance with privacy and data protection
legislation is necessary, both for consumer protection
and the credibility of the CC sector.
-- Liability, accountability and responsibility: using
the observation protocol the researchers set about
evaluating the information that the platforms
provided on their websites on a range of legal issues,
such as: fiscal data, terms and conditions of use,
the level of responsibility accepted for the electronic
service provided, cancellation policies, conflict
resolution systems, and the provision of guarantees
in relation to the good or service sold by non-
professional providers.
The results of the research clearly show that most CC
platforms need to take some measures to improve the
legal information that they provide to users and that
consumers’ rights need to be better protected.
In particular, more complete and better information
about platforms’ fiscal data, company registration
details and contact information is needed. This type of
information, as well as appropriate details on the terms
and conditions of the service, has to be displayed in
the language of the country and be easily understood.
It is also important that CC platforms comply with
administrative regulations.
In relation to conflict resolution, CC platforms should
implement policies to help resolve conflicts between
users and to avoid conflicts developing. When a conflict
between a user and a platform arises, the law should
be applied in accordance with the relevant national
jurisdiction of the consumer. Additionally, as a way
to provide a safe environment for CC transactions,
platforms should verify that providers have adequate
insurance cover in place or provide insurance policies
where necessary.
Measuring the economic, social and environmental
impact of CC platforms
Before conducting the survey of platforms, the research
set out to establish what indicators should be measured
to establish the impacts that P2P CC platforms produce.
This task was particularly difficult since, up to now, no
independent and recognised methodology for measuring
CC impacts exists. The research included a pioneering
consultation process with 33 experts (a Delphi process)
that resulted in consensus on a set of economic,
social and environmental indicators. The elaboration
of these indicators, which will be published under an
open creative commons licence, represents a significant
advancement in knowledge about how CC impacts
should be measured, and provides a solid basis for
platforms, academics and institutions to carry out future
research.
Following the Delphi process, we designed and sent a
questionnaire to the 70 selected platforms. At present,
platforms don’t seem prepared to be as transparent as is
necessary, as the response rate was lower than expected;
only 26 platforms participated. While the response was
probably affected by the detailed nature of the survey, we
also found some reluctance to disclose economic data.
Regardless, a number of conclusions can be drawn:
-- P2P CC platforms are efficient, managing numerous
transactions with just a few staff. Efficiency means
that the platforms can be self-sufficient, but also
pose a challenge to the traditional labour market.
-- The vast majority of the surveyed platforms favour
centralized governance models; only one of the
surveyed platforms operated a truly collaborative
model.
-- Almost half of the surveyed platforms operate non-
monetized transactions or interactions monetized
with an alternative currency. The existence of non-
monetized CC is very positive.
-- As for the environmental benefits of CC, most claims by
platforms would appear to be more based on hearsay
than any evidence. Similarly, there seems to be little
awareness of potentially negative impacts of CC.

Netnographic social study: three types of CC platform
In order to explore the way that CC platforms organise
and enable social interaction through design, features
and informational content, a completely original
research tool (a social Netnographic observational
protocol) was developed and subsequently implemented
by independent observers.
The results show that the balance between business
and collaboration varies greatly from one platform to
another, even within the same sector. The key difference
between platforms is whether they are focused solely on
utility (providing services to users in a safe environment)
or community. Utility focused platforms tend to
focus more on functionality and exchanges between
individuals, whereas community focused platforms
promote collaboration and sharing values and see CC as
a way to create change in both the economy and society.
Multivariate analysis showed that platforms could be
clearly distinguished according to four dimensions:
functionality, trust and virtual reputation, monitoring
systems and community footprint. The analysis identified
three typologies with the following characteristics:
-- 46% of the platforms in the study are network
oriented and aimed at creating networks of users
connected by their common interests and digital
reputation. Representative platforms: Airbnb and
BlaBlacar.
-- 28% of the platforms in the study are transaction
oriented; their purpose is to facilitate easy and
practical exchanges between users. Representative
platforms: Segundamano (Spain) and Uber Pop.
-- 26% of the platforms in the study are community
oriented. Their model is a transformative paradigm
that aims to create stronger communities and to
promote more sustainable consumption habits.
Notably, Italy and Belgium have more platforms in
the community category compared to Spain and
Portugal. Representative platforms: Repair Café
(Belgium), Reoose (Italy) and Huertos Compartidos
(Spain).
From a social perspective,
the true value of the platforms
is the quality of the connections
they generate between their
users and their capacity to create
a safe environment by using
rules, good information, virtual
reputation systems, guarantees or
mediation. Consequently, it can
be concluded that most platforms
really offer people a practical
solution to their day-to-day needs
and just a few platforms also aim
to transform society by creating
an economy based on fairer
values.
In brief, the answers to the questions we posed…
1. Collaborative consumption has high levels of
awareness and involvement amongst those citizens
that responded to the survey. Individual users are
clear that CC platforms add value; this is reflected
in high satisfaction levels and users’ reasons for
participating.
2. CC platforms appear to be a safe environment for
transactions. Users reported no major conflicts,
although better conflict resolutions systems should
be put in place by the platforms, as current systems
seem not so effective. Additionally, some legal issues
need improvement and clarification, particularly as
the observational study of the legal dimensions of
the platforms found different levels of compliance
with the appropriate regulations. For instance, users
should receive better information about the identity
of the platform (fiscal data) and platforms should
clearly distinguish between private and professional
providers, as different legislation applies.
3. Determining the social, economic, and environmental
impacts of CC is a difficult and complex exercise,
though the work with the experts has gone some way
to furthering knowledge on this area. Undoubtedly
the indicators can be improved, but fuller
collaboration from platforms will be essential to the
development of more complete answers about the
true impact of CC. Nonetheless, the platforms’ survey
provided important information about the structure,
governance, and environmental awareness of the
responding platforms. From our data, it is clear
that CC platforms are efficient but their governance
models are still far from being collaborative. While
some of the platforms are aware of environmental
issues related to their operation, they provide no
evidence about how their activities actually benefit
the environment.
4. A platform’s orientation is not just a question
of what they do but also of how they do it. The
balance between business and collaboration varies
greatly from one platform to another, even within
the same sector. The social netnographic study
determined that there are three typologies of
platforms: network oriented, transaction oriented,
and community oriented. All of them give value to
users, but only about a quarter (26%) of platforms
are focused on communities and have strong social
and environmental missions.

Glossary
Disintermediation: removal of intermediaries in a supply
chain.
Garden sharing: an arrangement in which a landowner
allows a gardener access to land, typically a front or
backyard, in order to grow food.
Greenwashing: making a misleading advertisment or
unsubstantiated claims about the environmental benefits of
a product, service or company.
Group purchases: buying products (usually foodstuffs)
directly from the producer or farmer on a regular basis and
as part of a group.
Home swap: exchanging the use of a house/apartment for
a specific period of time between private persons.
Home restaurant: private people cooking food to be offered/
sold to other private people. This type of interaction can
take different forms (as an organized dinner, take away, etc.).
Netnography: emergent methodologies that adapt
observational and ethnographic research to the on-line
environment. These techniques are based on observation
of websites by participants and non-participants, and other
resources for researching on-line communities.
On demand: activities created or products and services
delivered “on demand” for the consumer.
P2P (peer-to-peer): symmetric relationship between two
private individuals.
P2P free accommodations: offering a private person free
accommodation in your house/apartment, and staying in
the house/apartment of a private person for free.
P2P car & parking rental: renting a vehicle or a parking
space from another private person (not from companies).
P2P handicraft sales: buying/selling handicrafts to other
private persons (not companies).
P2P room/house rental: room, house or apartment rental
from/to another private person for a short period of time
(e.g. holidays).
P2P tourist activities: guided tours, gastronomical, social
eating, cultural and sporting activities organized by local
residents (not companies) for other private persons.
Platform: intermediary (often ina a digital market place)
that puts the two sides of the market (consumers and
providers) in contact, and creates the rules of exchange. It
can be for free or for profit (fee, subscription, etc).
Professional provider: a provider, producer or trader of
goods and services. Typically a sole trader, professional or a
company.
Prosumer: a private individual who provides, produces
or trades goods or services not related to their habitual
business, trade or profession. Such activity could be for
profit, not-for-profit or for intangible rewards or social
reasons such as helping other users, reducing waste,
improving the environment, etc.
Repair cafes: gatherings where experts offer to repair
certain goods (typically furniture, household appliances,
electronics and high tech products, etc.), usually off line
and for free.
Ride sharing: taxi services (often within a city/town) offered
by the driver of a vehicle who is not an official taxi driver,
organised via a website/app.
Sharing economy: socio-economic system around the
social paradigms of sharing, collaborating and cooperating.
It refers to access economy (renting or exchanging goods
rather than selling), gig economy (contingent work
transacted on a digital marketplace, including on-demand
services by professionals), P2P collaborative economy
(included consumption), and commoning economy
(initiatives that are collectively owned or managed).
Time banking: a community of people exchanging services
for each other, receiving a certain amount of time/credit in
return that they can exchange for work/time from other
users in the group.
User: consumer, prosumer or trader operating on a
collaborative consumption platform.
Carpooling: sharing a ride (typically between different
cities/towns), with the passengers and the driver of a
vehicle sharing the costs.
Collaborative consumption (CC): consumption exchanges
between private individuals (or an organized group of
individuals) relating to access instead of ownership,
redistribution markets and collaborative lifestyles.
Collaborative washing: making a misleading advertisment
or unsubstantiated claims about the collaborative benefits
of a product, service or company.
Consumer: in a transaction within collaborative
consumption schemes, consumers are private individuals
that consume goods and services.
Crowdfunding (donations and reward): contributing/
asking for contributions from individuals (the crowd), to
develop an initiative/project, who receive nothing in return,
a reward or the product upon completion (usually the result
of the project, e.g.: CD, book, etc.).

consumption (CC) on society. In particular there
isn’t any agreed framework on how CC and sharing
economies can be measured in terms of its triple impact
on the economy, society and the environment.
Without such independent and methodologically reliable
data it is impossible to fully and accurately address the
on-going debate about the value of CC: is the sharing
economy really collaboration or just a new way of doing
business? We also run the risk of falling into the trap of
supporting products and services that might do more
damage than good (greenwashing, collaborative washing,
etc.) and conversely of missing out on the possibility
of supporting positive Collaborative Consumption and
Sharing initiatives.
Within the current context, where the culture of
owning coexists with an emerging culture of access
and sharing, measuring the impact of collaborative
consumption has become a crucial task.
This report aims to contribute to this task by analysing
in an independent, systematic and methodologically
objective fashion a series of key gaps in the literature
and data through a series of research methods, which
include: a comprehensive desk research phase; a survey
of more than 8.670 users; a Delphi study with experts;
and a detailed questionnaire for participating platforms.
Through this multifaceted methodology the research set
out to answer four over-riding questions, namely: what
can we learn about:
-- User numbers and participation on a range of
platform types, as well as perceived motivations and
barriers to participation.
-- The level of compliance of collaborative
consumption platforms with legal regulations.
-- The triple impact of collaborative consumption
activity on the economy, society and the
environment.
-- How the design of a particular digital platform
shapes social interactions by promoting and
enabling particular opportunities and transmitting
specific values.
The research covers 70 P2P CC platforms operating
in Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain, some of which
belong to the same international company. These is a
sample of platforms aimed at including the broadest
representation of P2P CC platform type, area of activity,
influence and relevance in the participating countries.
Multi-platform international companies were given the
option of completing a single questionnaire or one for
each country.
What is collaborative
consumption?
Sharing is a phenomenon as old as humankind. In
small communities, neighbours have always exchanged
food or tools; they trade their work in exchange for
other valuables that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to
access.
While the culture of owning has always coexisted
with a culture of access and sharing, in recent years,
collaborative consumption (CC) has blossomed to
become a part of the lifestyle of many young people,
and is also linked to the idea that businesses should
improve society at the same time as they generate
wealth. However, as we stated before, ˝collaborate˝ is
a fuzzy concept, and, as Benkler points out, sharing
may not be the most accurate term “since much of the
collaborative economy involves cash payment, rather
than straightforward reciprocity” (Benkler, 2004).
This leads to the first big question:
WHEN DO INFORMAL EXCHANGES BECOME
COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION?
Intro
Collaborative
consumption:
a new frontier?
Introduction
Consumption patterns are quickly changing towards
a model based on the exchange of goods and services,
not only between companies and consumers, but also
between private individuals. The “sharing economy”
has become a global phenomenon in a context of on-
going technological change, globalization and economic
disruption.
However, there is no consensus on the definition of
˝sharing economy˝; it is a broad concept that covers
a vast range of activities from access economy,
to gig economy, P2P collaborative economy and
commoning economy (UE Committee of the Regions,
2015) This research only focuses on the area known
as “collaborative consumption”, defined as activities
conducted between peers (Peer-to-Peer–P2P), through
symmetric consumption relationships.
Despite its economic importance, there is a lack of
independent data on the real impact of collaborative

Firstly, since the digital turn, the Internet has powered
the scope of collaborative consumption. Contacts are
no longer limited by physical proximity; they span great
distances, connecting people that could never have
met otherwise. Interactions between users take place
through on-line platforms, in two-sided exchanges that
eliminate the need for an intermediary; the collaborative
consumption platform brings together a network of
suppliers and a network of consumers and aims to match
their interests and needs.
When a citizen offers a service, he/she adopts the role
of a “prosumer” (consumer that produces). When the
supplier offering a service or product is a prosumer we
can speak of P2P collaborative consumption. However,
when the supplier is a professional provider, we’re still
dealing with traditional consumption, which falls under
the rule of consumer legislation, regardless of whether
the channel is a traditional shop or an on-line platform/
website. This is to say that collaborative consumption
always involves a symmetric relationship of consumption
between peers (P2P), “from me to you”. Many authors
consider that the collaborative consumption movement
relates exclusively to the digital environment because
the Internet has acted as the necessary catalyser to scale
up CC from localised to global marketplaces. However,
we consider CC to be a social movement, a relationship
between citizens that can occur in everyday life, not just
via a digital platform. For the purpose of this research we
have included collaborative consumption relationships in
both the off-line and on-line contexts, but with a greater
emphasis on the rapidly developing digital environment
and on-line platforms.
This leads to the second major question, related to the
legal contexts that govern P2P exchanges:
WHEN DOES A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL BECOME A
PROFESSIONAL PROVIDER?
02 Collaborative consumption: a new frontier? / What is collaborative consumption?

Consequently, in an on line collaborative consumption
business model, there are normally two different
markets and two distinct services taking place.
First, there is the service provided by the on-line
platform: it provides the infrastructure and the technical
means that make it possible for two private individuals
(a prosumer and a consumer) to get in touch and make
an exchange. The laws governing Internet consumer
exchanges are applicable to this service (between the
platform and the user).
The second type of service is provided directly by the
prosumer (accommodation, transport, food…). The role
that the intermediary platform plays in delivering this
second type of service is essential to determining to what
degree the platform should be legally responsible for the
service provided.
On the other hand, it is also necessary to distinguish
between real collaborative consumption platforms,
which act only as intermediaries connecting users, from
those platforms that are service providers to an on-line
community of users. In the first case, the platform is
not responsible for the service/product provided in the
exchange between a prosumer and a consumer, whereas
in the second type they can be held to account through
consumer law.
Platforms act as intermediaries that create a safe
environment for users, but they do so through a
centralized governance model, whereby they process and
control all exchanges. As a result, a risk exists of creating
a monopoly or a power imbalance between platform
proprietors and their users. With blockchain technology,
algorithms organize relations between users; “the code
is the law”. There is no need for a platform as such, so it
opens the door to a future of distributed and decentralized
relations. Blockchain is already being applied to some
collaborative consumption experiences (i.e. http://lazooz.
org/, http://slock.it/), but we’ll have to wait to see if users are
really ready for relationships under this type of technology,
and to see what the pros and cons really are.
Which leads us to also ponder the as yet unanswered
question:
WHEN DOES A INTERMEDIATE PLATFORM BECOME A
SERVICE PROVIDER WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
SERVICES OFFERED?
02 Collaborative consumption: a new frontier? / What is collaborative consumption?

A complex phenomenon
Nowadays, the sharing economy has become a popular
label for a broad range of activities and organizations.
While it is about collaborative consumption, it is also about
alternative forms of collaborative finance, education and
production that aim to transform the social and economic
system, in line with certain ideological values.
The research set out to assess the economic,
environmental and social impact of collaborative
consumption activities that take place exclusively
between private individuals (P2P) in three broad areas of
activity, as defined by Botsman & Rogers (2010):
1. Access instead of property: also known as Product
Service Systems, this refers to systems based on
goods markets instead of property. They allow
people to pay for the benefit of using a product
without owning it outright. This category includes
services related to:
a) Transportation: carpooling, ride sharing, car&park
rental, carsharing (P2P only).
b) Accommodation: P2P room and house rental, free
accommodation and home swapping.
c) P2P goods rental.
2. Redistribution markets: the redistribution of things
from where they are not needed to someone/
somewhere they are needed. The origin of this
type of market dates to 1995 with the founding
of eBay and Craigslist (local classified ads). On-
line Exchange now includes second hand markets,
donations and bartering networks.
3. Collaborative lifestyles: platforms allow for the
sharing and exchange of less tangible assets such
as time, skills, money, experiences or space at local
level. Examples include: food consumption groups,
time banks/skill sharing, micro tasks, garden sharing,
repair cafés, crowdfunding (donations&reward only)
and tourism experiences.
Some other types of activities that also belong to the
collaborative consumption paradigm have been excluded
from this research because they don’t fit the P2P model,
including: public bike sharing, B2B, B2C, co-housing, Co-
working ...
CC: a potential game
changer?
Collaborative consumption, as an emerging way of doing
business, promotes a new culture of access instead of
ownership. Fuelled by technologies and decentralized
networks, it is proposed to unlock wealth at the base of
the economy and create new marketplaces. However, as
alluded to earlier, many researchers find that when the
sharing economy is market-mediated, it is not really a
“sharing” economy at all; rather they prefer to name it
“access economy” (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012).
CC has attracted a great deal of attention in recent times.
Platforms such as Airbnb and Uber are experiencing
explosive growth, which, in turn, has led to regulatory
and political battles. At the centre of these clashes are
promoters’ claims that these new technologies will yield
utopian outcomes - empowerment of ordinary people,
efficiency, and even lower carbon footprints. While on the
other hand, its detractors speak that CC is nothing more
than “speculative consumption and platform capitalism”
(Morozov, El País, August 2015).
The reality is clearly more complex and nuanced.
So between these two extreme views, what can be
said about CC that might give a more balanced
perspective?
Some theorists hold that traditional consumption
systems are insufficient to transform the global economy
toward sustainability. In this context, Collaborative
Consumption offers new modalities that promise
incremental improvements in existing production with
benefits to society, the economy and the environment.
CC is proposed to shift the balance of power from
centralized organizations to distributed networks of
people at a time when citizens are increasingly gaining
awareness of its transformative power. In such a scenario
the CC stands as an important trend and emblem
in the new economy of collective intelligence, which
serves as the powerhouse behind changing consumption
behaviour.
From an economic point of view, Collaborative
Consumption, and the transition from ownership
to access culture, can produce positive long‐term
implications: higher rates of economic growth, higher
standards of living, increased innovation and lower
barriers to entrepreneurship.
From a social point of view, P2P platforms reinforce
renewed beliefs about the importance of community
values. Increased social interaction between people who
do not know each other is a key requirement for CC
and trust becomes a crucial value. Accordingly, social
transformation through these emerging, mostly virtual,
community exchanges and trades is an important
goal. The sense of belonging to these communities on
occasions accords users an additional sociocultural
value or social currency with the benefit that such
participation can “elevate one’s perception of the quality
of his or her community life” (Jacob et al, 2004: 43).
02 Collaborative consumption: a new frontier? / A complex phenomenon

From an environmental point of view, the potential to
reduce consumption and support greater environmental
sustainability has often been raised as a benefit
of CC. According to Botsman and Rogers (2011)
“redistribution is the fifth ‘R’ ‐ reduce, recycle, reuse,
repair and redistribute ‐ and is increasingly considered
a sustainable form of commerce”. Many sites and
platforms advertise themselves as green and present
sharing as a way to reduce the carbon footprint, though
as we’ve mentioned there is a severe lack of data in this
respect.
Or CC is not such a fair
play?
While the potential of collaborative consumption to
transform the world seems enormous, many issues
have been raised by detractors, who see many risks in
the new paradigm and draw attention to accusations of
unfair competition, tax evasion and precarious work as
just some of the more serious complaints. Some of these
issues are briefly described below:
Digital exclusion? It has been argued that digitally
excluded groups cannot access the opportunities
offered by CC. In this respect, one of the main economic
challenges is how to scale up from young, urban
and tech savvy citizens to a viable alternative for all
consumers, including those in rural areas, unable to
participate due to a lack of proximity to potential users.
Can sharing be taxed? When people make use of their
idle assets it challenges traditional rules, regulations
and ways of doing business. As collaborative start‐
ups begin to monetize their activities, governments
have begun to debate the taxability of CC revenues.
Discussions have focused on clarifying when an
occasional, non–professional activity (such as hosting
strangers in a primary residence) becomes a professional
or commercial business subject to additional tax. An
additional problem is determining how tax policy should
be structured when money is not involved or if such
activities should be taxed at all.
Labour conditions: jobs creation or precariousness?
Another major debate on CC focuses on the dangers or
weaknesses in relation to workers’ rights. The dilemma
identified here is whether Collaborative Consumption
frees us from the power of monopolies and big
corporations, or if, on the contrary, it destroys steady
jobs and consumer rights. The central theme of the
discussions on labour exploitation relates to for‐profit
companies. Critics see them as architects of a growing
class of workers in precarious employment at the end of
the era of economic security.
Market disruption: unfair competition? The effects
on traditional markets are evident, CC platforms force
traditional suppliers to innovate and reduce their prices.
The taxi and hotel sectors have accused large CC start‐
ups of disruptive competition and tax evasion. Successful
platforms (e.g. Uber) are backed by and integrated
with the large corporations (e.g. Google, Facebook) that
dominate the digital economy. As a result of this, the
more monopolized a sector is the less likely value will
flow to providers and consumers.
Governance of CC platforms is still centralized and
with a tendency to be monopolised: CCs are supposed
to shift power from the top down, from centralized
institutions to decentralized connected communities and
distributed networks. But big platforms are becoming
quasi monopolies. Instead of being open ecosystems
they tend toward centralization with a resultant loss of
diversity, healthy competition, and the creation of value
that is not shared with users.
Do lower prices drive hyper-consumption? Does
sharing under-utilized items lead to longer lasting and
higher quality products or does it lead to increased
consumption? In regard to clothes and fashion
accessories the research conducted by Demailly and
Novell (2014) suggests that second-hand purchases
democratize luxury items by lowering prices instead of
reducing the overall consumption of new products.
Privacy issues: in digital platforms a companies’
users and their data are the product. Some authors
suggest that users are the main assets of collaborative
platforms, as they are the critical mass required for
the success. The data generated by users is the product
that is sold (Balkan, 2015). The Internet, in this light, is
not participatory, since it is largely governed by massive
corporations, with much smaller and less significant roles
played by prosumers.
Trust building lacks standards and quality control. The
role of ratings and reputational information is at the centre
of questions about new forms of social capital. However,
trust building lacks standardized peer reviewed reputation
systems that can be verified. Wosskow (2014) states that
there is a need for standards on quality control and for
common on-line terms of use. There is also an unresolved
issue concerning the portability of virtual reputations
across platforms, so users do not have to build a reputation
from scratch every time they join a platform.
Environmental impact, an information black spot:
As stated above the environmental benefits of CC are
often mooted, but this is based on the assumption that
“sharing is less resource intensive than the dominant
ways of accessing goods and services because of the
presumed reduction in demand for new goods or
facilities” (Schor, 2014: 6). Detractors question whether
increased transport, distribution, logistics and related
CO2 emissions (e.g. long distance shipping and delivery
02 Collaborative consumption: a new frontier? / Or CC is not such a fair play?

of items from home to home) are taken into account.
This is not helped by the fact that research on the
relationship between business and sustainability
theory in the context of a sharing economy is scarce.
Additionally, there are almost no comprehensive studies
that explore how CC might help to reduce CO2 emissions
and an almost complete lack of data.
Evaluating platforms
Since collaborative consumption is a “new frontier”, there
are as such still many uncertainties, many questions to
resolve. The research set out to clarify some of them by
objectively assessing platforms across a series of metrics.
In order to conduct the sampling, a number of platforms
were selected for inclusion in the sample frame, which
was designed to provide a representative base as well as
sufficient coverage within categories. The initial list of
200 platforms provided by Ouishare and the consumer
organisations, was refined, on the basis of:
1. Type of platform: The research was restricted to
platforms engaged exclusively in P2P relations,
including: access instead of property; redistribution
markets (second hand products, donation and
exchange) and collaborative lifestyles. B2B, B2C,
co-housing, co-working and public bike sharing
platforms were excluded.
2. Willingness to participate in the research.
a) Some interesting platforms like Etsy, Carpooling,
Couchsurfing, Swishing, Tuindelen or Wallapop
declined to participate from the beginning.
b) Others, such as Vayable, Foxize or Tutellus, didn’t
respond to the email inviting participation.
Operational constraints: To guarantee timely delivery
the study was limited to around 20 platforms per
country. Each platform was selected for their market
representativeness (perceived, since no market share
data is available) and in order to achieve a good balance
between different categories of platform. Under these
criteria, several small platforms that were willing
to participate were excluded from the final sample
frame (e.g. Autopia, Bedycasa, Bluemove community,
Chicfy, MyFlexypark, Rentalia, Truecalia, Trocas online,
Compartir mesa Ave or Social toys).
International platforms were researched at national level
because we couldn’t make any a priori assumptions that
they would generate the same impact or operate exactly
the same way in different countries. However, we found
that both the national websites and operations were
very similar and consolidated results are presented in
most cases. The final sample included six international
platforms: Blablacar, Airbnb, Homeaway, Home Exchange,
Homelink, Time Republik.
02 Collaborative consumption: a new frontier? / Evaluating platforms

LIST OF INTERNATIONAL
COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION
P2P PLATFORMS:
CARPOOLING
AMOVENS
https://amovens.com/
BLABLACAR
www.blablacar.be
www.blablacar.es
www.blabacar.it
www.blablacar.pt
BOLEIA
www.boleia.net
ROADSHARING
www.roadsharing.com/it/
RIDE SHARING
UBERPOP Brussels
www.uber.com/es/cities/brussels
P2P CAR & PARKING RENTAL
SOCIALCAR
www.socialcar.com/
P2P CARSHARING
TAPAZZ
www.tapazz.com
P2P ROOM/HOUSE RENTAL
AIRBNB
www.airbnb.be
www.airbnb.es
www.airbnb.it
www.airbnb.pt
HOMEAWAY
www.homeaway.es
www.homeaway.it
www.homeaway.pt
HOUSETRIP
www.housetrip.com/pt
P2P FREE ACCOMODATIONS
BEWELCOME
http://www.bewelcome.org/
WONINGOPPAS
www.woningoppas.be/
HOME SWAP
HOME EXCHANGE
www.trocmaison.com/fr/
www.huizenruil.com/nl/
www.intercambiocasas.com/es/
www.scambiocasa.com/it/
www.trocacasa.com/pt/
HOMELINK
www.homelink.be/en
http://homelink.it/
TRAMPOLINN
https://trampolinn.com/es/
P2P RENTAL
INSTRUMENTHEEK
http://instrumentheek.be/
LOCLOC
www.locloc.it
WIJDELEN (PEERBY)
www.peerby.com/
P2P SECOND HAND
MANZANASUSADAS
www.manzanasusadas.com/
PERCENTIL
http://percentil.com/
REOOSE
www.reoose.com
SEGUNDAMANO
www.segundamano.es/
P2P DONATIONS
FREECYCLE
https://www.freecycle.org/
NOLOTIRO
http://nolotiro.org/es
P2P BARTERING NETWORKS
BARATTO MATTO
www.barattomatto.it/
COSE(IN)UTILI
www.coseinutili.it/
CRECICLANDO
www.creciclando.com
IEDEREEN RUILT MEE
http://iedereen.ruiltmee.be/
OP WIELEKES
http://opwielekes.be/
TROKAOK
http://trokaok.pt/
ZERO RELATIVO
www.zerorelativo.it/
FOOD GROUP PURCHASES
LA COLMENA QUE DICE SI
https://laruchequiditoui.fr/es
TIME BANKING
CIROSEL
http://cirosel.be
TIMEREPUBLIK
https://timerepublik.
com/?locale=es
https://timerepublik.com/?locale=it
WWOOF
www.wwoof.pt/
ON DEMAND MICROTASKS
ETECE
http://etece.es/
GUDOG
https://gudog.com/
LIST MINUT
https://listminut.be/
PIGGY BEE
www.piggybee.com/
GARDEN SHARING
HUERTOSCOMPARTIDOS
www.huertoscompartidos.com/
REPAIR CAFÉS
REPAIR CAFÉ
www.repaircafe.be/
CROWDFUNDING (donations
and reward)
CROWDFUNDING ITALIA
www.crowdfunding-italia.com/
CROWDIN
https://crowdin.be/
DEREV
https://www.derev.com/
MYMICROINVEST
www.mymicroinvest.com/en/about
PPL
http://ppl.com.pt/pt
PRODUZIONI DAL BASSO
www.produzionidalbasso.com/
SO CROWD
www.socrowd.be/
ULULE
www.ulule.com/
VERKAMI
www.verkami.com/
P2P TOURIST ACTIVITIES
BONAPPETOUR
https://www.bonappetour.com/it
GNAMMO
https://gnammo.com/
PEOPLECOOKS
www.peoplecooks.it/
EATWITH
www.eatwith.com/
TRIP4REAL
www.trip4real.com/
1 - ACCESS TO THE PRODUCT INSTEAD OF PROPERTY 2 - REDISTRIBUTION MARKETS 3 - COLLABORATIVE LIFESTYLES
02 Collaborative consumption: a new frontier? / Evaluating platforms
The research was conducted between June and August 2015. Since then, some platforms have changed: Segundamano is now called Vibbo and
has a different design; Amovens and Social car have also be redesigned; Uberpop Brussels is not operating since October 2015.

-- The level of knowledge/awareness of CC initiatives
-- The profile and characteristics of participants/non-
participants
-- The barriers to participation for those who do not
partake in CC
-- Users’ motivations for participating
-- Users’ experiences and satisfaction when
participating in CC initiatives
-- How problems during exchanges are resolved.
Although there is a huge range of CC initiatives and
activities, in the introductory chapter CC activities
were defined in terms of three broad areas related to
symmetric P2P relationships: access instead of property;
redistribution markets; and collaborative lifestyles. Here
the results on users’ experiences and behaviour are
presented in four sections, which correspond to those
three general categories, except that Access instead of
property is divided into two sub-sections: transportation
and accommodation.
The fieldwork took place between April and July 2015
and the data collection was organized in 3 different
waves:
-- Sample 1. General population: A paper questionnaire
was distributed to the general population by means
of commercial sampling lists. The questionnaires
were distributed according to the structure of the
general population in each country, in terms of
gender, age and geographical area. Each member of
the sampling frame received an envelope containing
an introductory letter, the questionnaire and a pre-
paid and addressed return envelope. No reminder
letters were sent. When conducting the analysis, the
data collected through the paper questionnaire was
weighted to reflect the socio-demographic distribution
of the general population in terms of gender, age,
educational level and geographical area.
-- Sample 2. Consumer association members: An on-
line questionnaire was sent to a sample of suscribers
in the four participating national consumers’
associations (Altroconsumo [Italy], OCU [Spain], DECO
Proteste [Portugal] and Test-Achats/Test-Aankoop
[Belgium]).
-- Sample 3. CC platform users: An on-line
questionnaire was distributed through collaborative
consumption platforms (newsletters, links on their
websites), collaborative consumption associations
and social networks of the consumers associations,
in order to broaden the sample to include more
active on-line CC users. This questionnaire was used
exclusively to assess satisfaction with experiences
on CC platforms and only when, for a particular
platform, the general population sample and the
consumers’ association members sample did not
provide enough responses to conduct analyses. The
responses of sample 3 have never been added with
the other two samples. The use of data from sample
3 in the analysis is signalled where appropriate. It
should be borne in mind that as these respondents
represent the opinions of frequent platform
users, they are not representative of the general
population. We would like to thank the following
platforms and associations for their collaboration:
TABLE 1: Platforms and associations that distributed
the questionnaire to their users
BELGIUM ITALY PORTUGAL SPAIN
Piggy Bee Homelink The people
who share
Blog
consumocolaborativo.com
Myflexipark Scambio
Casa
PPL Verkami
Crowdin Derev Social Car
Repair
Café
Blablacar
Peerby Homeaway
Percentil
Airbnb
01
Let the users speak
They give CC
the thumbs up
01.1. Results from a survey
of 8,670 consumers
This section provides the results to the first part of the
primary research: a survey designed to help us know
more about the type of consumers that engage in P2P
Collaborative Consumption (CC) initiatives and to explore
how consumers perceived their experiences with CC.
Before presenting the results it is worth remembering
that for the purpose of this research we used a definition
of collaborative consumption that includes both on-
line and off-line experiences. Consequently, the survey
research presented in this chapter includes consumers' CC
experiences in both the digital and off-line environments.
The research set out with a number of objectives,
namely to establish the following:
-- The extent to which people had participated in CC
initiatives

The response rate ranged from a low of 2,2% for the
questionnaire sent to the general population in Belgium
(sample 1) to 3,9% in Italy. The total number of validly
completed questionnaires was 8,679, which is broken
down according to sampling type and country in table 2.
TABLE 2: Valid answers received by country
COUNTRY
Belgium Italy Portugal Spain Total
General
population 447 780 632 665 2.524
Consumer
associations
members
1.046 1.432 1.024 1.425 4.927
Platforms/
social
networks
from our
consumer
associations
639 124 42 423 1.228
Total 2.132 2.336 1.698 2.513 8.679
01.2. Participation in CC
initiatives: More than 70% of
respondents had engaged in CC
Respondents were asked if they had “ever” participated
in “any” CC activity. The results reveal that participation
in CC activities is quite high amongst the population
surveyed, reaching 72% of those interviewed when all
four countries are analysed collectively. Second hand
markets, the most traditional CC activity, is also the most
popular. If second hand markets were excluded, overall
participation would fall to around 50%.
TABLE 3: Participation in CC activities (on at least one
occasion any time in the past)
COUNTRY
Belgium (%) Italy (%) Portugal (%) Spain (%) Total (%)
N=391 N=780 N=606 N=643 N=2420
Transportation 21 9 11 20 14
Accomodation 26 23 30 28 27
Redistribution 78 50 60 66 61
Collaborative
lifestyles
33 30 36 38 34
Any CC initiative
(all included)
85 62 74 74 72
Any CC without
used products
55 44 51 53 50
Base: General population file (weighted).
In terms of the profile of people participating in CC
activities, age seems to be the most important variable,
although education level and gender also have a
significant influence.
1. Age and education: Those aged 37 or younger
tend to participate more than older respondents.
For those above this age, education level plays an
important role when defining participation (those
with a higher education level tend to participate
more).
2. On line vs. Off line: Regarding whether users made
contact off line or on line, the results found that
males, aged 42 or less and with a high education
level have the highest participation on digital CC
platforms.
3. Prosumer vs. consumer: In relation to involvement
as a prosumer or consumer, prosumers tend to
have a higher education level than consumers.
4. Participation in social and community activities:
Participants in CC initiatives tend to be more
involved in community activities and follow more
socially conscientious lifestyles in comparison
to non-participants. For example, they are more
likely to do volunteer work, to use bicycles as a
form of transport, and to buy fair trade and organic
products. They also tend to travel more and are
generally more politically engaged (measured in
the questionnaire by asking about the frequency of
participating in demonstrations).
5. Differences by CC sector: Focusing on the four
different areas of CC participation included in
the research, we see that participants aged 31
or younger are the most active in transportation
initiatives. In accommodation initiatives, prosumers
02 Let the users speak / 01.2. Participation in CC initiatives: More than 70% of respondents had engaged in CC

are older than in other CC initiatives, since this role
involves owning a house or an apartment. As for
participants in Collaborative Lifestyles initiatives,
they show the highest level in commitment to
socially conscientious lifestyles.
01.2.1. Transportation activities
Although participation in initiatives related to transport
is not the most prevalent in the research, the level of
awareness amongst the general public is particularly
high, especially for carpooling and ridesharing.
TABLE 4: Participation in and awareness of CC transportation initiatives
COUNTRY
Belgium (%) Italy (%) Portugal (%) Spain (%) Total (%)
N=391 N=780 N=606 N=643 N=2420
Carpooling
I have participated 19 5 6 7 8
I have not participated, but
I am aware of this initiative
78 85 86 82 83
Ridesharing
78 75 76 78 77
P2P car & parking rental
68 65 66 62 65
TABLE 5: Mode of contact for last participation in a transport initiative
Not through a website/app
Through a website/app
On line vs. off line: In the general population sample in
Belgium and Portugal the majority of respondents stated
that they made contact with other users off line (i.e.
through acquaintances, friends, etc.). Conversely in Spain
and Italy contact was more commonly made on line (app
or website).

Most popular transportation platforms: General
population respondents were also asked which app or
website they used the last time they participated in a CC
transport activity. The most popular transport platforms,
ordered from highest to lowest use, are:
1. Belgium: Taxistop.
2. Italy: Blablacar and Uberpop.
3. Portugal: Blablacar and Uber.
4. Spain: Blablacar.
Respondents’ roles in CC exchanges: In terms of the
involvement of respondents in transport activities, most
frequently respondents had been “passengers in car
pooling” and “drivers in car pooling”. In Spain, parking/
car rental is the most prevalent transport role, along
with car pooling passenger.
TABLE 6: The role adopted by respondents when
participating in CC transport initiatives
Role
COUNTRY
Belgium
(%)
Italy
(%)
Portugal
(%)
Spain
(%)
Total (%)
N=78 N=58 N=56 N=107 N=299
Carpooling
passenger
86 47 43 27 49
Carpooling
driver
72 29 24 12 33
Ride sharing
passenger
10 38 33 23 24
Ride sharing
driver
3 1 16 10 8
I rented my
car or my
parking space
in a P2P rental
scheme
1 18 9 25 15
I rented a car
or a parking
space in a P2P
rental scheme
4 25 3 28 16
Base: Participants in any transport initiative. General population file
(weighted). Multiple response.
Satisfaction with transportation platforms: Due to the
sample size it was only possible to analyse satisfaction
amongst platform users for Blablacar and Autopia
(Belgium). Both scored around 8 out of 10, and no
statistically significant differences were found between
them.
TABLE 7: Satisfaction with transportation platforms
(design, use, options available) (Scale 1-10, average)
Platform
COUNTRY
Belgium Italy Spain
Platforms/
social
networks
sample
General
population/
members
sample
General
population/
members
sample
Autopia 7,8
BlaBlaCar 8,3 8,2 7,8
Not enough responses for any platform in Portugal.

01.2.2. Accommodation activities
More than a quarter of the people interviewed (27%) had
participated in a CC initiative related to accommodation.
P2P “home rental” is the most prevalent activity and P2P
"free accommodation" is also widely known.
On line vs. off line: In Belgium and Portugal the
majority of respondents, around 60%, made contact
off line, responding: “I did not make contact via a web/
app”. Conversely, the majority of contacts in relation to
accommodation initiatives in Spain (54%) and Italy (58%)
are made on line, so contacts online and offline are more
balanced.
TABLE 8: Participation in and awareness of CC accommodation initiatives
COUNTRY
Belgium (%) Italy (%) Portugal (%) Spain (%) TOTAL (%)
N=391 N=780 N=606 N=643 N=2420
P2P room/house rental
68 68 65 67 67
P2P free accommodations
81 70 76 72 74
Home swap
87 84 79 81 83
TABLE 9: Mode of contact for last participation in an accommodation initiative
Not through a website/app

Most popular accommodation platforms: Airbnb was
found to be the most popular platform in Belgium, Italy
and Spain, whereas Homeaway was the most frequently
used in Portugal (platforms ordered from highest to
lowest participation):
-- Belgium: Airbnb.
-- Italy: Airbnb and Homeaway.
-- Portugal: Homeaway and Airbnb.
-- Spain: Airbnb, Homeaway and Rentalia.
Respondents roles in accommodation exchanges: The
greatest level of participation by respondents relates to
their positions as consumers, such as being the tenant
in the renting of a house or room, as opposed to being
prosumers (or renters in this case).
Satisfaction with accommodation platforms: Satisfaction
with the apps/websites used by the participants
was calculated (where permitted by the number of
responses). Similarly to transport activities, satisfaction
with platforms is good to very good; scores are generally
at an average of 8 out of 10 or higher. When statistically
significant differences appear, averages are indicated
with different colour background: red for the lower
satisfaction group and green for the highest satisfaction
group.
TABLE 10: Satisfaction with accomodation platforms (design, easiness of use, options available) (Scale 1-10, average)
COUNTRY
Belgium Italy Spain
General
population
sample
Platforms/social
networks sample
General
population
sample
Platforms/
social networks
sample
General
population
sample
Platforms/social
networks sample
Airbnb 8,2 8,1 8
HomeExchange /
Scambiocasa /
Intercambiocasas
8,4 8,6 8,6
Homelink 7,3
TABLE 11: What was your role in the accomodation initiatives in which you have participated?
COUNTRY
Belgium (%) Italy (%) Portugal (%) Spain (%) TOTAL
Tenant in a P2P room/house
rental
86 85 80 83 83
Guest in a free P2P
accommodation
19 17 27 9 18
Landlord in a P2P room/house
rental
7 10 8 16 11
Host of a free P2P
accommodation
9 15 10 7 10
Private person in a home swap
scheme
1 2 4 3 2
Base: Participants in any accommodation initiative. General population file (weighted). Multiple response.

01.2.3. Redistribution markets
Almost the entire sample was aware of the existence
of second hand markets as a CC activity; more than
half of the respondents had bought or sold a second
hand product, and the other half knew of this type of
initiative.
Regarding typical products in redistribution markets,
the most popular are clothes and accessories, books,
furniture and electronic products (such as mobiles
phones, tablets, computers, etc.).
Respondents’ roles in CC exchanges: In terms of
involvement in redistribution markets the analysis shows
that there is a rough balance between “sellers/prosumers”
(64%) and “buyers” (73%) of used products, though
consuming is somewhat more common than selling.
Additionally, donating (42%) is also a frequent form of CC.
On line vs. off line: In redistribution markets the on-line
environment is clearly the most popular means of selling
and buying; 66% of contacts were made via a website in
comparison to only 6% via hard copy publications such
as newspapers or notice boards; 28% of respondents
stated that they made contact through relatives or
acquaintances. This result remains the same regardless of
whether the analysis focuses on contacts made during the
previous year or more than a year ago.
TABLE 12: Participation in and awareness of CC redistribution markets initiatives
COUNTRY
N=391 N=780 N=606 N=643 N=2420
Buying/selling a used
product
27 53 52 42 46
Donating/receiving as a
donation a used product
38 56 47 45 48
Bartering a used product
69 62 66 62 64
Renting a used product
64 56 66 66 63
TABLE 13: Mode of contact for last participation in redistribution markets initiative
Not through a website/appz
Via hard copy publications: newspaper, notice board)
Physical P2P markets (flea markets…)

Most popular second hand (redistribution) markets
platforms: the following platforms were found to be the
most popular ((platforms ordered from highest to lowest
participation):
- Belgium: 2ememain.be, Ebay and Kapaza
- Italy: Subito.it and eBay
- Portugal: OLX and CustoJusto
- Spain: Segunda Mano, eBay and Wallapop .
Satisfaction with redistribution markets platforms:
Satisfaction with the apps/websites used by the
participants was measured (where permitted by the
number of observations). Overall satisfaction with
used-products platforms is marginally lower than for
other CC categories, though still high. When statistically
significant differences appear, averages are indicated
with different colour background: red for the lower
satisfaction group and green for the highest satisfaction
group.
TABLE 14: Satisfaction with redistribution platforms (design, easiness of use, options available) (Scale 1-10, average)
COUNTRY
Belgium Italy Spain
General
population/
members sample
Platforms/social
networks sample
General
population/
members sample
Platforms/social
networks sample
General
population/
members sample
Platforms/social
networks sample
2ememain.be 7,8
eBay 7,7 7,9 7,9
Kapaza 7,8
Le boin coin 8,2
Freecycle.org 7,7
Subito.it 7,7
OLX 7,8
Segunda mano 7,6
Wallapop 7,8
Milanuncios.com 8,3
Percentil 8,1

01.2.4. Collaborative lifestyles
This category includes many different types of activities,
from crowdfunding to time banks. The initiatives that
attract more participants are Group Purchases, and P2P
handicraft sales. Purchases through Groupon and similar
discount websites are not included.
Most popular collaborative lifestyle platforms:
The list of collaborative lifestyle platforms was
particularly diverse which made it impossible to extract
ranking according to popularity.
Satisfaction with collaborative lifestyle platforms:
Due to the diversity of platforms it was only possible to
extract a reliable satisfaction rate for two platforms:
-- KissKissBankBank (Belgium): a notably high 8,5
(sample 3: platforms/social/networks);
-- Verkami (Spain): 7,8 (samples 1+2: general population
+ members).
TABLE 15: Participation in and awareness of CC collaborative lifestyle initiatives
COUNTRY
N=391 N=780 N=606 N=643 N=2420
Crowdfunding
I have not participated, but I am
aware of this initiative
66 60 66 67 65
Crodwlending (peer-to-peer
lending)
58 58 63 64 61
Group purchases
65 64 57 58 61
Timebanking
52 71 71 72 68
Garden sharing (not for Italy)
I have participated 2 -- 3 6 4
71 -- 78 69 73
Home Restaurant (only Italy)
I have participated -- 3 -- -- 3
-- 64 -- -- 64
Repair cafes
72 54 63 53 59
P2P tourist activities
50 51 57 53 53
Micro tasks and errands
58 57 65 63 61
P2P education/collaborative
learning
51 52 60 58 56
P2P handicraft sales
48 52 57 54 53

Respondents’ roles in collaborative life exchanges:
In terms of participants’ involvement in collaborative
lifestyles, participating as consumers predominate: the
most popular activity is buying handicrafts from a
private person (31%), which is closely followed by being a
“participant in a group purchase” (27%).
TABLE 16: Role adopted by respondents when participating in CC collaborative lifestyles initiatives
COUNTRY
N=91 N=130 N=118 N=164 N=504
Buyer of handicrafts 32 19 43 31 31
Participant in a group purchase 33 35 14 26 27
Investor/donor in crowdfunding 15 15 14 21 17
Participant in P2P tourist activities 2 27 13 11 14
Hirer of micro tasks and errands 10 16 20 8 14
Performer of micro tasks and errands 8 16 19 9 13
Seller of handicrafts 2 8 18 11 10
Lender via crowdlending 4 13 4 15 10
Private person having broken items
repaired at a repair café
6 3 20 2 7
Borrower via crowdlending 0 8 3 12 7
User of educational content in P2P
collaborative learning
9 5 3 9 7
Provider of P2P tourist activities 4 10 5 5 6
Private person offering services/time via
a timebank
2 5 8 6 5
Creator of educational content in P2P
education/collaborative learning
4 3 3 8 5
Gardener in a garden sharing scheme 2 0 7 6 4
Expert at a repair café 1 0 9 5 4
Private person using services via a
timebank
0 6 0 4 3
Other role/initiative 7 2 3 2 3
Landowner in a garden sharing scheme 1 0 4 5 3
Recipient of funds via crowdfunding 0 3 2 1 2
Guest at a home restaurant (only Italy) n.p. 7 n.p. n.p. 2
Host at a home restaurant (only Italy) n.p. 3 n.p. n.p. 1
Base: Participants in any collaborative lifestyles initiative. General population file (weighted). Multiple response.

01.3. Reasons for
participating in CC
initiatives: economic
benefits and practicality
As the data shows, collaborative consumption is now
a very significant trend amongst consumers; there was
a good level of knowledge about such initiatives and
participation seems higher than expected. When we
explore the reasons for people to get involved in CC we
find that the primary motivation is economic (to save
or earn money) or practical (convenience, better meets
consumers’ needs).
Some people, particularly those who have participated
in collaborative lifestyle initiatives, also mentioned other
altruistic motivations and social considerations, such
as: "to foster economic relatonships/solidarity between
private persons".
TABLE 17: Main reason for participating in CC initiatives
TRANSPORTATION
%
N=668
To save money 54
Practical reasons (e.g.: flexible hours, more
comfortable, better suited to my needs,…)
20
To share travel experiences/to get to know
people
7
To place less burden on the environment 7
To earn money 4
To foster economic relationships between private
persons
3
Other reasons 5
Base: Participants in any transportation initiative. General
population + members.
ACCOMMODATION
%
N=1156
To save money 48
Practical reasons (e.g.: flexible hours, more
comfortable, better suited to my needs,…)
26
Staying with/getting to know locals in the places
I visit
12
To earn money 7
persons
4
Other reasons 3
Base: Participants in any accommodation initiative. General
USED PRODUCTS INITIATIVES
%
N=2207
To save money 45
To help other people with products I no longer
need/use
18
To get rid of things I no longer need/use 16
To earn money 12
persons
2
Finding things that are no longer available or difficult
to find in shops
2
Other reasons 2
Base: Participants in any used products initiative. General
COLLABORATIVE LIFESTYLES
%
N=1010
To foster economic relationships/solidarity
between private persons
38
To save money 35
To earn money 6
Practical reasons (quality/originality of product/
service, suited to my needs, etc.)
4
Other reasons 5
Base: Participants in any collaborative lifestyles initiative. General
02 Let the users speak / 01.3. Reasons for participating in CC initiatives: economic benefits and practicality

01.4. Barriers to
participation in CC
initiatives
Those respondents that had never participated in a
CC activity (on line or off line) were asked why they
had never engaged in CC in a multiple response type
question. The results reveal that the two most important
reasons for non-participation mentioned by respondents
are lack of “opportunity/need” (63%) and lack of
awareness of CC activities (41%).
Interestingly only a fifth of respondents stated that their
reason for not participating in CC was that they did “not
trust” people sufficiently.
TABLE 18: Reasons for non-participation in CC initiatives
Base:
Participants in any CC initiative.
General population file (weighted). Multiple response.
02 Let the users speak / 01.4. Barriers to participation in CC initiatives

01.5. Users' opinions on CC
participation: A safe and
satisfactory experience
In terms of how participants rate their satisfaction with
platforms, collaborative consumption seems to be a
success. Users were asked to rank their satisfaction with
CC experiences on a scale from 1 to 10, with a score
between 8 and 10 considered ‘very satisfied’. Including
respondents from all four countries satisfaction ranged
from 8.0 to 8.2 across each of the 4 sectors measured.
This is particularly noteworthy as it shows a high level of
consistency between sectors and compares very well to
consumer experiences in other more traditional markets.
Satisfaction in 4 CC categories: In terms of performance
by sector, the results show that the four CC categories
measured have similarly high satisfaction scores, with
accommodation the highest ranked activity area at 8.2,
followed by transportation (8,1) and second hand markets
(8.1), and finally collaborative lifestyles (8.0).
When analysing by country the results show that
satisfaction in the second hand market category is
marginally lower in Spain and Italy when compared to
Belgium and Portugal.
Satisfaction with on-line vs. off-line CC: Users are
in general very satisfied and ratings are high for
respondents who made the contact off line (generally via
acquaintances or friends) and on line. This would suggest
that P2P transactions mostly work smoothly, regardless
of the way of making the contact (online/offline) or
whether the transaction was made with a stranger or
somebody the user knew. In this sense “social trust” in
CC encounters seems to be functioning well.
02 Let the users speak / 01.5. Users' opinions on CC participation: A safe and satisfactory experience

Plans to use CC in the future: When asked if they were
willing to participate in CC again, only 8% stated “No
(most) probably not” against 65% that answered “Yes,
(very) probably”.
TABLE 19: Satisfaction with the most recent experience of collaborative consumption by mode of contact
COUNTRY
Transportation
N=309 N=114 N=78 N=218 N=584
Through a web
page/app
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
0 4 13 2 3
8-10 (very satisfied) 69 80 70 72 73
Not through a
website/app (e.g.:
via acquaintances)
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
4 0 13 8 6
8-10 (very satisfied) 77 68 58 66 70
Accommodation
N=219 N=291 N=214 N=334 N=1058
Through a web
page/app
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
2 3 1 3 2
8-10 (very satisfied) 78 80 74 71 76
Not through a
website/app (e.g.:
via acquaintances)
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
2 4 5 4 4
8-10 (very satisfied) 72 75 71 65 70
Redistribution
markets
N=481 N=483 N=385 N=649 N=1998
Through a web
page/app
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
3 2 4 4 3
8-10 (very satisfied) 79 69 76 66 71
Not through a
website/app (via
acquaintances)
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
1 4 1 3 2
8-10 (very satisfied) 82 71 72 76 76
Via hard copy
publications
(newspaper, notice
board)
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
0 3 0 8 3
8-10 (very satisfied) 68 69 55 73 68
Collaborative
lifestyles
N=186 N=236 N=128 N=248 N=798
Through a web
page/app
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
1 3 11 5 4
8-10 (very satisfied) 71 78 55 58 67
Not through a
website/app (e.g.:
via acquaintances)
1-4 (very
unsatisfied)
3 2 1 3 2
8-10 (very satisfied) 77 66 70 65 69Base: Participants in any CC initiative. General population + members.
02 Let the users speak / 01.5. Users' opinions on CC participation: A safe and satisfactory experience

01.6. Complaints about
participating in on-line CC
activities
Respondents who had engaged in an on-line CC activity
were asked, through an open-ended question, to describe
any negative experience that they had had or any
experience that reduced their feelings of satisfaction. On
the whole only a very small percentage of respondents
completed the question, however, analysis of the
responses provides some interesting results:
-- Transportation (9 responses): All of the responses were
related to carpooling, and mostly referred to delays
(from both drivers and other passengers). They also
identified difficulties with planning when and where
to meet, the state of the car (being too dirty, too old,
etc.), and the lack of a personal connection between
participants. In 1 case a respondent claimed a driver
left without picking up a passenger.
-- Accommodation (21 responses): The majority of
responses came from tenants in P2P room/house
rental. Their responses were mostly related to the
lodging and equipment not corresponding completely
to the description on the app/website, and also
to practical aspects like tidiness, cleanliness, or
difficulties when contacting the owner to access to
the apartment.
-- Redistribution markets (52 responses): Most responses
were from buyers but there were also some from
sellers. Buyers complained about receiving broken or
unusable items, or about the description of the product
not being accurate. Also in some cases difficulties in
returning the product and problems with the guarantee
occurred. In 2 cases buyers did not receive the product
at all even though they had paid for it. Sellers mostly
complained about the difficulty of selling products
due to supply being greater than demand and in a few
cases about the fee charged by some websites. In 2
cases sellers complained that they were not paid after
having sent a product to a buyer.
-- Collaborative lifestyles (8 responses): Mostly related
to crowdfunding, respondents mentioned not
having received the reward that was promised when
donating for a project and also that projects were not
completed.
Dealing with problems in on-line CC activities: In a
different multiple response, closed-end question, we
asked respondents who had engaged in an on-line CC
activity to report what they did to resolve these problems.
For all four types of CC initiative, the most common
response was to undertake no action (60% for
transportation, 44% for accommodation, 60% for redistribution
markets and 81% for collaborative lifestyles). The second
most common way to handle a problem was to express
the issue to the other party and to try to come to an
agreement (above 20% in all 4 CC categories).
Other less significant responses included contacting the
app/website to complain (15% for transportation, 12% for
accommodation, 8% for redistribution markets and 12% for
collaborative lifestyles) and writing a bad reference in the
web profile of the other party (3% for transportation, 17%
for accommodation, 8% for second hand markets and 8%
for collaborative lifestyles). Only in a very minor number
of cases (in total less than 3%) did the respondent state
that they had contacted consumer authorities or a
consumer association to deal with the problem.
In light of the kind of problems that were reported in the
open-ended question and the high rates of satisfaction
reported by respondents, it is clear that the problems
participants had to deal with are of relatively low
importance; they tend to let things go or to try to come
to some amicable agreement with the other party. Other
means of dealing with problems are not very common
and appear to be used only with more serious issues.
Although the number of responses is not large enough
to draw statistically significant conclusions for these
more serious cases, we asked respondents if the actions
they took were of any help. On the whole, such measures
appear not to have helped resolve the situation, which
led some respondents to stop participating in these CC
initiatives.
Overall, it seems that “reputation building” and trust
systems on the platforms are working well, but only
to a certain extent. In this regard, the efforts that
some platforms are making to improve procedures for
leaving reviews might be of help. Such actions include:
encouraging participants to write reviews; focusing on
giving real practical information; hiding reviews until
both parts have completed them, etc. Although it is
of low prevalence, according to respondents, conflict
resolution in more serious cases also seems to be an area
that could be improved.
02 Let the users speak / 01.6. Complaints about participating in on-line CC activities

01.7. Conclusions
1. Awareness of Collaborative Consumption initiatives
by the general public is high. Younger people
(aged 37 or under) tend to participate more, while
education level appears to be also an important
predictor of participation in CC.
2. Collaborative Consumption doesn't only occur
through digital (on-line) platforms, but rather, we
have seen that peers exchange and share goods or
services off line as much as on line.
3. Reasons for participating in CC are diverse, but
the two most mentioned are economic (saving or
earning money) and for practical reasons (“better
suited to my needs”). Ideological motivations
were also present, but to a lesser degree, and
included reasons such as “promoting cooperation”
or “protecting the environment”. For some, social
reasons (getting to know local people, sharing
experiences…) and altruism (donating) were also
mentioned.
4. The greatest barriers to participation relate to lack
of knowledge about these initiatives or the fact that
some people have not yet considered participating
in CC. “Lack of trust” or “worse consumer protection”
also play a role.
5. Participants in CC initiatives are mostly very
satisfied. There are no important differences
between satisfaction with CC experiences off line
and on line. On this basis, the finding in section 1.4
that a fifth of non-users perceive on-line CC to be
too risky due to trust issues appears not to be based
on the actual experiences of users.
6. A few respondents reported that they were
unsatisfied with their CC experiences. The reasons
vary, but there seem to be few serious conflicts.
7. The most common way that participants in on-line
CC activities deal with problems is to do nothing.
When action was taken, it did not appear to be
effective in conflict resolution.
02 Let the users speak / 01.7. Conclusions

02
CC & the law:
a safe environment
for users?
02.1. Collaborative
platforms: a two-level
relationships
Collaborative consumption platforms connect a network
of providers (prosumers or professionals) with a network
of consumers. In this respect, when a user engages with
a CC platform they enter a relationship not just with the
other user but also with the platform. Platforms facilitate
transactions and reduce costs for all parties involved. To
do so, the platform must generate enough trust on both
sides of the market by creating an environment where
users (consumers, prosumers and professionals) feel safe.
As such, in this business model, there are normally two
distinct services taking place: Firstly, there is the service
provided by the platform to its users in what is known as
the upstream market, which is regulated by the European
Union's E-commerce Directive. Services in the upstream
market relate to the provision of infrastructure and
technology for the facilitation of an exchange/contract
between two parties. Apart from product/service display
and search features, such platform technology includes
features such as user profiles, virtual reputation systems,
on-line payment methods or extra on-line services (e.g.
insurance, guarantees, arbitration).
The second service is normally provided by the
prosumer/professional provider, and while always
arranged on line it can be carried out either off
line (sharing a car, renting an apartment, selling
self-produced handicraft, micro tasks, etc.), or on-
line (crowdfunding, online time banks, etc).

A look at the chart on the left, shows the complexity
of the legal framework and variation in governance that
is theoretically applicable to CC transactions (on line
or off line) depending on the type of actors (B2C or P2P)
involved.
While the legal accountability for the first type of
service (information society service) is relatively
clear, the role that the intermediary platform plays
in delivering the second type of service is key to
determining what responsibilities the platform has for
any off-line services; if the platform fixes the prices, the
schedules, or intervenes in any way in the provision of
the service, it would indicate that the platform is the
provider (or partial provider) of the service and not just
an intermediary. As far as consumers are concerned, the
big question is:
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE IN THE CASE OF A PROBLEM?
WHAT CAN A USER DO TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT?
So, at a legal level it is very important to understand
that users are involved in a two-fold relationship: their
relationship with the platform, and their relationship
with the other user (prosumer or professional provider).
In the case of a prosumer, civil law applies, but in the
case of a professional provider (sole trader, professional,
company, etc.), consumer law applies. And that leads to
a second important question:
WHEN DOES A PROSUMER (NON PROFESSIONAL
PROVIDER) BECOME A PROFESSIONAL PROVIDER?
The legal conditions under which a prosumer may
be considered a professional provider vary between
European states and even between different regions
inside each State. In some countries, an activity is
considered as non-professional when the income is
below the minimum wage, or below a specific amount
of money (e.g. 5,000€ per annum in the case of Italy).
Legislations use a range of criteria to distinguish
between private and professional activity: the most
common are capacity, regularity, for-profit vs. not-for-
profit and whether or not the actor intends to or does
make a living out of the activity.
Furthermore, some platforms offer services to companies
as well as to users. Other platforms differentiate
their offerings and charge professionals higher fees
for superior services. Many platforms, however, state
that they only serve individual users (consumers or
prosumers) and make this clear in their conditions of
use (e.g. Blablacar, Socialcar). From the consumers' point
of view, this distinction should be explicit and clearly
specified before engaging in the service, as the applicable
legislation is distinct in each case.
*Source BEUC (Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs)
02 CC & the law: a safe environment for users? / 02.1. Collaborative platforms: a two-level relationships

02.2. Users and platforms
In the relationship between users and platforms, there
are three aspects that have to be carefully considered:
privacy, legal responsibilities and economic terms.
-- Privacy issues: The digital economy is largely based
on a model that tracks users' activity as they visit
websites and use on-line services. The data collected
is often sold to other networks or third parties. A lot
of this trading takes place without users’ knowledge
or consent. Collaborative consumption platforms
increase the risks associated with on-line tracking,
as users contract off-line services or buy goods via
these platforms. Access to sensitive data, such as a
user's location, without their knowledge raises serious
concerns.
In this sense, all the platforms operating in or to
European countries must at least comply with the
corresponding national legislation, and European
regulations:
-- The E-commerce Directive or Directive 2000/31/
CE, issued by the European Parliament on June 8th,
2000.
-- The Data Protection Directive or Directive 95/46/
CE issued by the European Parliament on October
24th, 1995.
These regulations require that digital platforms seek
the explicit consent of users prior to collecting their
data or trading them with third parties. Also, clear
detailed information about a platform's cookie policy
has to be provided upon entering the website.
-- Platforms' responsibilities are one of the most
relevant issues for the users. In some cases, the
intermediary platform might be very strongly
involved in the marketing, contracting or delivery of
an off-line service, yet some waive all responsibility
for the safety, quality and fairness of that service.
Quite often, platforms publish a clause on their
websites, in the general conditions of service, which
exonerates them from any responsibility. This
highlights the importance of analysing each sector
or business model to establish the real role of
intermediary platforms in service provision and to
determine platforms' legal obligations to consumers
and to prosumers. Indicators that a platform isn't
just an intermediary, and that it might have certain
responsibility for the service it offers, include: issuing
of invoices for the service provided; involvement
in setting prices; establishing the conditions of the
exchange between two peers; and/or establishing the
conditions of the cancellation policy.
In a P2P relationship, platforms cannot be held
responsible for content published by users (E.g.
inaccurate product information) and have no legal
obligation to verify or supervise such content before
they are posted. However, they must promptly
remove or block any content if it is reported by users
as false, illegal or contrary to the rights or property of
a person. Platforms should also try to avoid posting
misleading information about products. They can also
allow consumers to verify products before buying
them, in order to increase trust and avoid fraud.
In order to cover possible damages related to the
services they intermediate, some platforms offer
insurance or other additional warranties. For
instance Airbnb includes an 800,000 Euro guarantee
for hosts (prosumers) to cover any damage to their
property. In May 2015 BlaBlaCar announced the
launch of a partnership with AXA to provide its users
(consumers and prosumers) with free additional
insurance cover (initially only available in France, the
UK and Spain).
-- Economic terms. Most platforms charge a
commission for acting as intermediaries in the
provision of a product/service between a consumer
and provider (prosumer or professional). The amount
is normally fixed as a percentage of the cost of the
service, which in some cases reaches as high as 20%.
Sometimes a fixed fee is charged for a fixed period
of time. There are also platforms that only charge
professional providers while permitting consumers or
prosumers to use the platform for free.
If payment is made on line, platforms should provide
safe payment methods such as secure payment
gateways or Paypal. Additionally, if platforms charge
for their services, they must issue an invoice, so that
incomes can be tracked and taxed according to tax
legislation. On the other hand, they cannot be asked
to issue invoices for services provided off line, as they
are offered by prosumers and not by the platform
itself. In a transaction between private individuals
invoices are not required (i.e. where neither party is
operating as a professional, see above).
In terms of rights related of the withdrawal from an
agreement to complete an exchange or cancelling
the reservation of a service, such conditions must
be agreed between individual users if they are peers
(i.e. consumers or prosumers). Some platforms apply
a 14-day withdrawal/cancellation rule as in regular
e-commerce businesses, while others do not recognize
this right or apply a penalty. Other platforms allow
cancellation at any time without costs.
02 CC & the law: a safe environment for users? / 02.2. Users and platforms

02.3. Prosumers'
obligations
Collaborative consumption allows citizens to generate
income and gain value by adopting the role of a prosumer.
Operating inside connected communities, they can benefit
more than as isolated individuals. Legal regulations should
not discourage such activity. Excessive restrictions and
bureaucratic requirements can turn a normal activity,
such as renting a holiday house, into an impossible task
for the prosumer. However, legislation has to be fine tuned
to establish clear limits between private and professional
activity. In any case, all prosumers should know the following:
-- Any income coming from an activity that involves cash
payment (selling goods, renting houses or cars, serving
as a tourist guide, etc.) has to be declared so that it
can be adequately taxed.
-- If the activity is non-professional, legal procedures
such as registering as a professional, which requires
social security payments and VAT declarations, should
not be necessary, although regulations vary from
country to country.
-- When a private individual (prosumer) sells a product
to another individual, he/she is generally responsible
for any hidden defects, but the duration of such a
guarantee is shorter and not as extensive as for a
professional provider (i.e. a company). In Spain and
Portugal, for instance, second hand products bought
from an individual have a six month protection against
hidden defects.
-- If a prosumer is involved in the occasional sale of
a self-produced product (arts and crafts, clothes,
jewellery, etc.), he/she is responsible for any hidden
defects and civil liability.
-- When a prosumer rents a car, the driver and
passengers have to be adequately insured. The
platform should verify that adequate insurance cover
is in place, since the standard car insurance may not
cover such services/activities.
-- A prosumer must be independent of the platform,
operating at his/her own risk.
-- And finally, all users have to be aware that
participating on a digital platform will mean that
personal information is divulged, as there is a trade-
off between privacy and virtual trust; building a good
reputation is a key to success.
02.4. Consumer rights
The relationship between a prosumer and a consumer
falls under general contracting civil law, which governs
relations between private citizens. Both parties are
free to agree on the conditions of the service or the
sale, although the platform can set some rules, such
as putting a limit on the price that the prosumer can
charge. In general, the consumer should know the
following:
-- Guarantees: Consumers should always be aware of
whether they are purchasing from a professional
provider or prosumer (non-professional). When
buying a product from a private individual
(prosumer), the guarantee that the seller is legally
obliged to provide is shorter than when a product is
bought from a professional provider (see 2.3). When
a product is bought from a professional provider,
under the European Directive for Consumer Sales and
Guarantees, the legal guarantee lasts for two years
for new products. However, in the case of second-
hand goods, the directive also allows professional
providers (sellers) and the consumer to agree on a
shorter time period for the seller's liability, but never
less than one year.
-- Responsibility: When the platform imposes schedules,
prices and other conditions, it could be argued
that the service providers (either prosumers or
professional providers) are employees of the platform
rather than independent providers. If this is so,
the platform could, in some cases, be considered
responsible for the service.
-- Right of withdrawal: Individuals can agree on whether
cancellation will be allowed or not and under what
conditions.
02 CC & the law: a safe environment for users? / 02.3. Prosumers' obligations

02.5. Legal Evaluation of
CC Platforms
Once we established the legal framework within which
collaborative initiatives operate, the research focused
on how to evaluate and measure the legal aspects
of collaborative consumption activities on on-line
platforms. We designed a Legal Protocol to evaluate how
platforms monitor exchanges, apply rules and ensure legal
responsibilities and accountability. Using this protocol tool,
a comparative evaluation of the platforms was performed
and a score for legal performance was calculated for
each platform. Of the platforms initially proposed for
inclusion in the study.
The Legal protocol (observational tool) included a series
of indicators in a hierarchical 5-point scale, based on
qualitative description. This framework was applied in the
same way to all the platforms included in the study. This
is to say that the study examined a set of common criteria
across all platforms. However, it should be noted that
each platform could be studied on a sector-by-sector (E.g.
accommodation or transport) or on a platform-by-platform
basis. See Annex 1 for a full list of the items (and their weights)
included in the Legal protocol.
Penalties were applied to the evaluation score if a platform
did not provide whole or partial information in the
language of the country of operation (E.g. Home Exchange,
Bewelcome, Freecycle, Trampolinn, Bonappetour, Tapazz).
PRIVACY
The platforms listed in this section are for illustrative
purposes only; the lists are not exhaustive.
a) Privacy and data protection:
This part of the protocol is devoted to measuring the
degree of compliance with international, national and
European Union regulations concerning data protection
and the consumer rights and obligations arising from it.
While some platforms correctly inform their users and
meet their obligations (E.g. Homeaway), others offer no
such information or if they do, it is only partial (E.g,
Gudog, Baratto Matto, Woningopass, Instrumentheek).
In some cases the information was not available in
the language of the country of operation (E.g. Eatwith,
Crowdfunding or Bonappetour, only provide such
information in English).
b) Cookies and commercial communications:
This aspect of the protocol evaluates compliance with
EU regulations as well as with national regulations on
information and consent related to cookies.
We found that some platforms offer all the required
information and terms and conditions on the website or
sometimes in hyperlinks (E.g. Segundamano, Blablacar,
Airbnb, Homeaway…). Other platforms had very little
information (E.g. Nolotiro) or a complete absence
of information (E.g. La colmena que dice sí, Gudog,
Woninggopass, Socrowd).
Overall, the research found a high degree of divergence
between platforms in relation to these legal obligations.
An improvement in these legal aspects of CC platforms
is necessary; all platforms must provide complete and
detailed information on data protection and cookie
legislation in accordance with regulations and do so in
the language of the country of operation.
LIABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
a) Legal terms and company status
This part of the protocol assessed the legal information
available on the company status of the platforms.
EU information society regulations on the provision
of services require full legal identification, including:
registered company name, registered company number,
tax information, postal address and electronic contact
details.
The research found that platforms often violate these
obligations in one form or another. Information is often
not complete or not clear (E.g. Woningopass, Wijdelen,
Piggy Bee), frequently e-mail contact details, phone
numbers and addresses are missing. Some platforms
didn't display any information at all (E.g. Nolotiro).
So, while some platforms provide comprehensive
information (E.g. La colmena que dice sí, Gudog, Airbnb
- that based in Ireland, but not in every country of
operation), it is not the norm.
b) Website terms and conditions
This section examined whether the user is given
information about the terms and conditions of service
on each platform, including the degree of clarity,
accessibility, and any additional information provided.
The results show that while some platforms (E.g. Airbnb)
offer extensive information, including the appropriate
local regulations for the activity area and users, other
platforms have very scant information (E.g. Socrowd),
or the information is not easy to find (E.g. Homelink,
02 CC & the law: a safe environment for users? / 02.5. Legal Evaluation of CC Platforms

TABLE 20: Legal evaluation of "Access instead of
property" platforms
PLATFORM
Websites
analysed
PRIVACY
LIABILITY,
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY
TOTAL
LEGAL
RESULT
30% 70% 100%
Homeaway IT, PT,SP 5,00 4,43 4,60
Social Car SP 4,67 4,43 4,50
Amovens SP 4,33 4,43 4,40
Airbnb IT, PT, SP 4,00 4,00 4,00
Airbnb BE 4,00 3,71 3,80
Housetrip PT 4,67 3,00 3,50
Blablacar SP 3,00 3,64 3,45
Blablacar IT, PT 3,00 3,07 3,05
Tapazz BE 4,67 2,36 3,05
Blablacar BE 3,00 3,07 3,05
Locloc IT 4,00 2,43 2,90
Uberpop BE 4,33 1,93 2,65
Homelink IT 2,67 2,36 2,45
Troc Maison
(=Home Exchange)
BE (FR) 3,00 2,07 2,35
Boleia PT 2,00 2,29 2,20
Instrumnetheek BE 2,00 2,07 2,05
Scambiocasa
(=Home Exchange)
IT 3,00 1,57 2,00
Roadsharing IT 2,33 1,64 1,85
Trampolinn SP 1,00 1,57 1,40
Woningoppas BE 1,00 1,57 1,40
Homelink BE 1,00 1,57 1,40
Bewelcome BE 1,00 1,29 1,20
Wijdelen (Peerby) BE 1,00 1,00 1,00
Intercambiocasas,
Huizen Ruil,
Trocacasa (=Home
Exchange)
BE (NL),
PT, SP
1,00 1,00 1,00
TABLE 22: Legal evaluation of "Collaborative lifestyles"
platforms
PLATFORM
Websites
analysed
PRIVACY
LIABILITY,
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY
TOTAL
LEGAL
RESULT
30% 70% 100%
La Colmena Que
Dice Si
SP 3,67 4,71 4,40
Huertos
Compartidos
SP 4,67 4,21 4,35
Trip4real SP 4,33 4,36 4,35
Etece SP 4,67 4,14 4,30
Verkami SP 4,67 3,50 3,85
Time Republik IT, SP 4,67 3,21 3,65
Mymicroinvest BE 4,33 3,21 3,55
Gnammo IT 4,00 3,14 3,40
Derev IT 3,67 3,14 3,30
Gudog SP 1,00 4,29 3,30
Crowdin BE 4,33 2,64 3,15
Ppl PT 4,33 2,43 3,00
Ulule SP 2,33 3,29 3,00
List Minut BE 4,33 2,36 2,95
Produzioni Dal
Baso
IT 4,00 2,50 2,95
Bonappetour IT 4,33 1,86 2,60
Peoplecooks IT 5,00 1,36 2,45
WWOOF PT 1,00 2,86 2,30
So Crowd BE 2,33 1,79 1,95
Crowdfunding
Italia
IT 3,67 1,00 1,80
Piggy Bee BE 1,00 1,00 1,00
Eatwith PT, SP 1,00 1,00 1,00
TABLE 21: Legal evaluation of "Redistribution markets"
platforms
PLATFORM
Websites
analysed
PRIVACY
LIABILITY,
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY
TOTAL
LEGAL
RESULT
30% 70% 100%
Manzanas Usadas SP 4,67 4,43 4,50
Segundamano SP 4,67 4,43 4,50
Percentil SP 5,00 3,64 4,05
Creciclando SP 4,33 3,79 3,95
Zero Relativo IT 5,00 2,07 2,95
Reoose IT 3,67 2,07 2,55
Iederen Ruilt BE 4,33 1,64 2,45
Troka Ok PT 2,00 1,86 1,90
Baratto Matto IT 1,33 2,00 1,80
Nolotiro SP 3,00 1,00 1,60
Freecycle BE 1,00 1,64 1,45
Cose (In)Utili IT 1,67 1,21 1,35
Op Wielekes BE 1,00 1,00 1,00

Wijdelen). In some cases the information was not
available in the language of the country of operation (E.g.
Bewelcome, Freecycle, So Crowd)
The terms and conditions of the service provided by the
platform are a key element to determining the rights
and obligations between the parties, so they should be
displayed in clear and easy to understand language.
c) Platform liability in the provision of an e-service to a
user
This part of the protocol sought to establish if the
platforms assumed responsibility for the electronic
service provided, e.g. in case of interruptions, viruses,
etc.
Once again the results vary from platform to platform:
some assume no responsibility for the quality of the
electronic service (E.g. Blablacar, Airbnb, Homeaway),
others limit their liability strictly to what is required
by appropriate legislation. Some others retain the right
to alter the page, to suspend or discontinue the service
partially or completely. Segundamano limits its economic
responsibility for such incidents to the amount received
by the user for the transaction.
In general platforms assume no responsibility for
e-services. We think that platforms should at least
assume the responsibilities stipulated in the regulations.
d) Liability for services provided in collaborative
consumption marketplaces
This part evaluates if platforms fulfil national
regulations regarding sharing-economy marketplaces
(if established), and if transaction safety is assured.
Additionally, we examined if platforms added value to
their services by offering insurance or warranties (in
cases of serious damages, fraud, or vandalism) that are
not required by legislation.
The research showed that some platforms (E.g.
Homeexchange, Topazz, Nolotiro) do not provide any
information on these matters, while others transfer
all responsibility to the user (E.g. La colmena que dice
sí, Etecé, Ulule). On the other hand, some platforms
offer additional insurance or guarantees as a benefit or
added value for users (E.g. Blablacar -only available in
France and Spain-, Airbnb -not in Portugal at the time
of the research-, Gudog). Others (E.g. Etecé, Trip4Real)
offer guaranteed satisfaction: if the service is not up to
expectations, the consumer can claim their money back.
e) Website terms and conditions in cases of conflict
Here the research sought to establish if the platform
provided complete information on policies and
complaints in cases of conflict.
Only one platform (Creciclando) offers equity arbitration.
Some others refer to national legislation in the country
of operation (E.g. Homeaway, Segundamano) or their
country of origin (Ulule applies French law and
jurisdiction). Airbnb intermediates but does not apply
national consumer legislation. Finally, some platforms
provide no information on this issue or the information
was not in the language of the country of operation.
When there is a conflict between the user and the
platform, to protect national users' interests, claims
should be resolved in accordance with the national law
and disputes brought to national courts or arbitrators. A
conflict resolution procedure with time guidelines should
be available to users. In case of a conflict between
users, the platform should play an active role; offering
mediation in conflicts is a plus for users.
f) Cancellation policy and reputation & responsibility
levels
The protocol was designed to find out if there was a
cancellation procedure and if the consequences of
cancellation were adequately explained to platform
users, as well as if a complaints contact details or forms
existed and if the platform encourages users to write
comments or reviews.
In this regard, some platforms offer comprehensive
information about cancellation policy (E.g. Blablacar,
Airbnb, Homeaway), however, some platforms don't allow
cancellation (E.g. Zero, Baratto Matto) and others simply
do not provide any information at all (E.g. Nolotiro).
According to consumer protection regulation, the
possibility of cancellation must be recognized at least
in relation to the intermediary (the platform). A contact
form or a contact address must also be provided.
Regarding users' reviews, not all the platforms offer this
feature, but it is a plus for users and for a platform's
reputation.
Overall, Homeaway is the best performing platform in
terms of legal criteria in the four participanting countries,
because of the quality and completeness of information
it provides about data protection, cookies, legal company
information, terms and conditions, applicable law and
jurisdiction in terms of guarantees. Airbnb also stands out.
The best-rated national platforms in each country are:
Manzanas usadas, Socialcar and Segundamano (Spain);
Gnammo (Italy); Mymicroinvest and Crowdin (Belgium),
and PPL (Portugal).

02.6. Conclusions
For platforms
Most Collaborative consumption platforms need to take
some measures to improve the information that they
provide to users and to better protect consumers’ rights;
in each of the three categories, more than half of the
platforms got an insufficient score regarding the legal
aspects of information, trust and liability.
In particular, platforms should:
1. Use the language or languages of the country in
which the platform operates to present general
conditions, data protection policy, cookies and any
other relevant information.
2. Improve overall compliance and information in
relation to data protection and cookies policy
regulation; privacy is an important factor for users.
3. Give better information about the platform,
including fiscal data, company registration details
and contact information.
4. Provide information about any direct or additional
guarantees offered by the platform, such as
insurance cover; it increases safety and users' sense
of trust.
5. Implement policies to help resolve conflicts between
users.
6. Apply the law and consumers' national jurisdiction
for handling complaints with the platform.
7. Comply with administrative regulations, and
labour and tax obligations.
For users
When navigating a CC platform, users should be
aware that they are entering into a relationship at
two levels: with the platform and with other users
(P2P). They should also be aware that consumer
protection laws do not apply to P2P transactions,
but they are applicable to the relationship with the
platform. If they want to interact successfully in this
environment, it is advisable to:
1. Write reviews or comments on the products
and services they have used or bought. Reviews
and comments are useful for all participants
(consumers and prosumers) as they help
build reputation and give feedback to improve
offerings. Reviews should be truthful and
respectful even if they express criticism.
2. Before interacting with a platform, search for
information about it on the Internet and social
media to make sure it has a good reputation.
3. Follow the rules of the platform and be
respectful to other users.
4. Check any fees or commissions that the
platform charges before committing to a
transaction.
5. Review the platform's cancellation and
withdrawal rights policy.
6. Look for any additional guarantees or
insurance cover and make sure the payment
method is secure. The risk of fraud is not
higher than on other websites, but being
cautious is always advisable.
02 CC & the law: a safe environment for users? / 02.6. Conclusions

Illustration of the research design
(desk research and Delphi process)
03
Measuring the
impact of CC:
What the experts
have to say…
In the introductory chapter we summarised some of
the main arguments for and against CC. While those in
favour highlight a series of benefits for the economy, the
environment and socially, detractors signal potentially
deleterious effects for labour, competition, tax, digital
inclusion and privacy, amongst others. Apart from
identifying these arguments the desk research process
also established that a lack of evidence and reliable
research on the true impact of CC is a major issue that
hinders attempts to support or contradict such debates.
Along with the results of the users' survey that we
presented in chapter 1, the research also included
a pioneering effort to develop and implement a
methodologically rigorous and empirically grounded
method for the assessment of the triple impact (social,
economic and environmental) of P2P Collaborative
Consumption, through a Delphi research process with
CC experts. This research with experts subsequently
forms the basis of the other primary research projects
(Netnographic protocol and Platforms' Survey).
03.1. A time for metrics:
The triple impact of
Collaborative Consumption
In this chapter we present the results of the Delphi
study and platforms' survey. The aim of this part of the
research was to make reliable information available to
assist users in their collaborative consumption decision-
making and to better inform them about their rights and
the impact of their choices. We see the research methods
employed here as a step towards the development of
reliable “metrics” to measure the impact of CC.
The first task of the research was to start to outline how
the social, economic and environmental impact of CC
might be measured and to identify what dimensions,
indicators and metrics are appropriate.
In order to answer these difficult questions, we first
identified a series of broad dimensions and indicators
by analysing the published literature. Using the findings
from the desk research phase we subsequently
employed a Three Round Delphi process designed ex-
novo for this research. The process brought together
a virtual panel of 33 CC experts with the objective
of reaching consensus on the economic, social and
environmental impacts of CC.
A Delphi process works like a virtual meeting or a group
decision‐making technique, bringing together a panel
of experts in order to arrive at an answer to a difficult
question. The design issues of general survey research
(method and instrument development) also apply to a
Delphi study. This Delphi study had three rounds:
1. Round 1: Taking the results of the desk research
phase, the researchers developed a 'seed-list'
of dimensions and indicators and designed a
questionnaire (containing both open and closed-end
questions) that was administered to the experts/
panellists.
2. Round 2: Based on the responses from Round 1, a
second survey was designed and re-administered.
The experts were asked to revise their original
responses or answer another set of questions based
on group feedback.
3. Round 3: Following analysis and refinement of the
indicators a third questionnaire was developed in
order to reach final consensus, with the exception
that this time the results were disaggregated
and weighted on the basis of each expert area of
expertise (economic, social, environmental).

The Delphi process involved 33 experts from the
academic world, institutions, consumer associations
and experts in collaborative consumption, with
representatives from Belgium, France, Germany,
Portugal, Spain, the USA and the UK. During this two-
month process all of the experts (see table 23, right)
participated on a voluntary basis and we are deeply
grateful for their invaluable contribution.
Following the conclusion of the Delphi process,
the indicators were then used as metrics in the
development of the platforms' questionnaire, which
was administered to a sample of 70 platforms in
Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The purpose of the
questionnaire was to assess CC impact using data
provided by the platforms. The results of this triple
impact assessment questionnaire are presented in
Section 3.5.
Additionally, a netnographic protocol to evaluate on-
line platforms from the perspective of their social
collaborative development, through independent
observation by researchers was also conducted (see
chapter 4).
TABLE 23: Experts that have participated in the Delphi process
COUNTRY NAME RESPONSIBILITY ORGANISATION
UNITED STATES Adrien Querbes Researcher Carnegie Mellon University
SPAIN Alejandro Salcedo Coordinator Instituto de Consumo de Castilla-La Mancha
SPAIN Angel González Chief Universo Crowdfunding
SPAIN Angel Mesado Public Policy Manager Airbnb - Spain & Portugal
BELGIUM Angelo Meuleman Project manager Taxistop
BELGIUM Anonymous Public administration
UNITED STATES April Rinne Sharing Economy Adviser
SPAIN Bernardo Hernández Bataller Secretario General AUC
PORTUGAL Cãndida Rato National coordinator The People Who share
USA César M. Buenadicha Sanchez Senior specialist Interamerican Development Bank
PORTUGAL Anonymous Platform
FRANCE Esra Tat Consultant, partner Alkimya.co
GERMANY Francesca Pick Global Coordinator OuiShare
SPAIN Gemma Domènech Costafreda Profesora de Derecho de la UE Academy
SPAIN Javier Creus Founder Ideas for change
SPAIN Joel Serra Bevin Global Community Manager Eatwith
SPAIN José Luis Fernández-Pacheco Miembro Instituto de Moneda Social (IMS) / UCM
UNITED KINGDOM Kathleen Stokes Senior Researcher Nesta
BELGIUM Ms. Khushboo Balwani Connector OuiShare Belgium
DENMARK Anonymous Public administration
BELGIUM Lieven D'Hont Founder & communications WijDelen vzw
UNITED KINGDOM Lisa Gansky Founder Mesh labs
BELGIUM Louise Hain coordinator/project officer Environmental Training Institutte
SPAIN Natalia Fernández Socia directora Cooperative Think tank Las Indias
UNITED STATES Neal Gordenflo Co-founder Shareable
SPAIN Nolberto Munier Researcher Polytechnical University of Valencia
SPAIN Oriol Pascual Director IQS Tech Factory
SPAIN Rafael Martinez Cortina Founder Yottottel
UNITED KINGDOM Richard Bates Digital Programme Lead Consumers International
SPAIN Santiago Cuerda Coordinador Asociación Reforesta- Huertos Compartidos
03 Measuring the impact of CC: What the experts have to say… / 03.1. A time for metrics:The triple impact of Collaborative Consumption

03.2. Delphi Results:
consultation with experts on
the triple impact of CC
Throughout the Delphi Research a progressive
development of knowledge regarding the impact of
Collaborative Consumption was achieved. The experts
reached a consensus on a set of indicators that brought
us closer to the development of a system for modelling
and measuring the triple impact of Collaborative
Consumption platforms.
The different values obtained in each of the
Collaborative Consumption modalities (Access instead of
Property, Redistribution Markets, Collaborative Lifestyles)
also helped to identify the relevance of each indicator
in relation to the operating sector of the platforms.
Most of the indicators developed during the Delphi
process obtained high scores, with a mean above 3 on
a scale from 1 to 5. This is a positive result, because it
means that the list had been refined to pertinent and
relevant indicators by the previous work calibrating the
dimensions1
.
1/ For more information see Apesteguía, Gordo & Rivera (2016) Facing
the Challenge of Collaborative Consumption in Europe: A Time for
Independent Metrics. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/20577011/
Facing_the_Challenge_of_Collaborative_Consumption_in_Europe_A_Time_
for_Independent_Metrics
3.2.1. Expert consensus on economic impact indicators
The experts identified a total of 13 indicators and agreed
that overall the five most appropriate measures of
economic impact are 'increased consumer purchasing
power', 'monetization of idle capacity', 'impact on local
economy' and 'money earned per user'. Other important
indicators relate to the balance between consumers,
prosumers and professional providers on platforms
and 'increased choice'. At a sectoral level there are
some important differences, for example the proportion
of 'users with a regular income' is very important in
collaborative lifestyles and 'contribution to taxes' is
deemed particularly important in redistribution markets.
TABLE 24: Economic impact indicators
Scores assigned by Delphi experts
General
Access instead of
property
Redistribution
markets
Collaborative
lifestyles
Increase in purchasing power: average savings of the users 4,25 4 3,83 4,08
Monetization of idle capacity: average extra earnings users make over a year by
sharing their idle capacity
4 3,67 4 3,5
Impact on local economy: average revenue made by users from the same
location/city/region over the last year.
3,92 3,83 3,83 4,33
Revenue and reputation: % of total revenue made by the users according to
their reputation rating.
3,83 3,75 3,17 3,83
Average amount of money earned per user on the platform. 3,67 3,83 3,42 3,5
Average amount of money spent per consumer on the platform. 3,58 3,58 3,42 3,5
Business to private user ratio: % of users that are companies, whether offering
or looking for services.
3,5 3,83 4,08 3,75
Providers to consumer ratio: % of providers as a proportion of all users/
consumers.
3,42 3,58 3,33 3,5
Increased choice: % of products-services offered that would not be available in
the regular commercial market
3,42 3,5 4 3,5
Transaction diversification: number of different kinds of transactions in the last
year (selling; giving or donating; renting/leasing; lending; etc.)
3,42 2,83 3,42 3,25
Redistribution level: proportion of all revenue earned by the top 20% of earners/
users.
3,33 3,33 3,17 3,25
Users with a regular income: % of users earning at least their countries
minimum wage
3,25 3,58 2,75 3,58
Platform contribution to taxes: % of each platform's taxes paid in the same
country where the revenue is made
3,25 3,33 3,75 3,08
(Highlighted in orange more important indicators by modality)
03 Measuring the impact of CC: What the experts have to say… / 03.2. Delphi Results: consultation with experts on the triple impact of CC

3.2.2. Expert consensus on social impact indicators
The complexity of measuring social impact indicators
is evident in the fact that the experts identified over 20
appropriate indicators. At a general level they agreed
that the most important indicators relate to how CC
promotes the development of social networks, for
example, the top indicators are: the degree of 'local
interactions'; the 'participation level' of users; the
impact of CC on 'off-line social gatherings'; 'on-line
community building'; and the percentage of 'non-
monetized' transactions. Differences between sectors
show that in access instead of property 'consumer
empowerment' and 'social trust' are considered
particularly important, while in redistribution markets and
collaborative lifestyles 'alternative currency' gains extra
importance.
Note: Chapter 4 explores social impact indicators in
greater detail.
TABLE 25: Social impact indicators
General
Access instead of
property
Redistribution
markets
Collaborative
lifestyles
Local interactions: % of all interactions between people from the same location/city/region. 4,3 4,44 4,67 5
Participation level: Users' average number of interactions per year. 4,2 4,78 4 4,78
Offline social gatherings: % of users participating in meet-ups or events over the previous year. 4,2 3,22 2,89 4,67
Online community building: % of users involved in online community spaces: forums, online
groups, communities
4,1 3,22 3,11 4,33
Non-monetary: % of non-monetized transactions (including alternative currencies), such as:
swapping, gifting, bartering…
4,1 3,67 4,56 4,56
Bridging connections III: % of all interactions between users of different age groups. 3,9 3,33 3,11 4,33
Social Trust I - Cognitive trust: Information that users can make available on their profiles (from
basic data -name, gender, age-, to ID Verification).
3,89 3,56 3,56 3,33
Bridging connections II: Proportion of all interactions between users with different education
levels.
3,8 3,33 3 4,22
Alternative currency: % of total transactions based exclusively on alternative currencies, including
time in time-banks.
3,8 3,11 4,22 4,56
Consumer empowerment: Options available for users to select offers or search for them (making
information available and improving consumers' ability to choose).
3,67 3,89 4,11 3,22
Social Trust II - Emotional trust signals: Options given to users to show themselves in images
(qualitative scale, from only profile picture, to videos).
3,67 3,89 3,67 3,56
Social Trust III - Rating System: Complexity and development of social trust rating systems
(qualitative scale, from no rating to advanced forms).
3,67 3,78 3,56 3,22
Recursive interaction: % of recursive interactions on the platform between any two users. 3,6 3,67 2,78 4,22
Monitoring Rules III - Procedures against misuse: Procedures against abuse, fraud or
impersonation (qualitative scale).
3,56 4 3,44 3,44
Monitoring Rules IV - Ratio of misuse: Proportion of users reported for abuse, fraud or
impersonation to total users on the platform.
3,56 3,67 3,78 3,56
Monitoring Rules II - Ratio of blocks and reports: Proportion of blocked, flagged or reported users
to total users (e.g. 10 reports every 1.000 users).
3,33 3,67 3,67 3,44
Social Trust IV - Virtual reputation (VR) systems: Complexity of the mechanism to build
reputation.
3,33 3,56 3,33 3,22
Monitoring Rules I - Block and report systems: Systems to block, flag and report users. 3,3 3,67 3,44 3,22
Most active users: % of users with participation above total users average interactions over the
previous year.
3,1 3,78 3,56 3,78
Bridging connections I: Proportion of all interactions between people from different countries. 3,1 2,78 2,89 3,67
Activity and reputation: Proportion of interactions/transactions made by users in each reputation
level.
3 3,44 3,44 3,11
Users' reputation maps: Proportion of users in each reputation level. 2,9 3,33 3,33 3,22
Intensity of use: Average time spent by users on the online platform per month. 2,7 3 3 3,89Highlighted in orange more important indicators by modality >

3.2.3. Expert consensus on environmental impact
indicators
The experts reached consensus on a total of 13
indicators, with a high rate of agreement between
modalities. Overall, the most important indicators
identified are 'geographical sustainability' (localised
consumption), capacity for 'waste reduction', 'resource
re-utilization', 'transportation efficiency' in terms of the
degree of inverse logistics, and 'disintermediation' or the
elimination of intermediaries from supply chains, i.e.
connecting consumers and producers.
TABLE 26: Environmental impact indicators
General
Access instead of
property
Redistribution
markets
Collaborative
lifestyles
Geographical sustainability: % of platform transactions at local/city/regional level. 5 3,5 4,75 4,5
Waste reduction: Volume of waste reduction due to sharing activities (reutilization, second-life...). 5 4,75 4,75 4,75
Resources re-utilization I: % of transactions/services involving products that can be reused. 4,75 4 5 4,75
Transportation/Shipment efficiency I: % of shipments by inverse logistics or shared logistics. 4,25 3,75 3,5 3,75
Disintermediation rate: % of products/services offered by producers directly to consumers
(farmers, crafters, etc.).
4,25 4,25 4,75 4,5
Durability promotion: Promotion of product durability through usage recommendations or
instructions for more efficient and sustainable use.
4,25 4,25 4,25 4,25
Sustainable Values I: Evaluation of sustainable codes and practices promoted by the platform. 4 3,75 3,5 4,5
Transportation/Shipment efficiency II: The percentage of vehicles involved in platform
transactions with pollution abatement technology (hybrid, electric, etc.).
4 4 3,5 3,5
Hazardous waste reduction: % waste reduction that involves hazardous waste (electronic devices,
toys with batteries, appliances…)
4 3,5 4,5 4,25
Resources re-utilization II: Proportion of environmentally friendly products/services or with
instructions regarding environmentally safe use or disposal on the platform.
3,75 3,75 4,25 4,25
Adoption of monitoring and evaluation of environmental sustainability performance (measured
with a qualitative scale from monitoring to the adoption of "certified standards").
3,5 3,75 2,75 3,5
Environmental investments: Proportion of the platform's annual budged dedicated to improve the
environmental sustainability of sharing activities.
3 3 3 4
Sustainable values II: % of users participating in environmentally friendly programs (recycle,
clean-up initiatives, etc.)
2,75 2,75 3 4,25
Highlighted in orange more important indicators by modality >

03.3. Survey of CC
Platforms: Too soon for
transparency
The objective of the platform questionnaire (on line and
self-completion) was to gather detailed information in order
to assess the economic, social and environmental impact of
on-line P2P CC platforms in the four participating countries.
The questionnaire’s design was grounded in the desk research
and the Delphi process, which helped to identify and assess
the key dimensions and indicators for the triple impact
assessment.
The field research took place during July and August 2015.
Out of 70 platforms contacted, only 22 completed the
questionnaire fully. Another 4 platforms (Boleia, ListMinut,
Tapazz and Ulule) only filled out one part and Blablacar's
headquarters sent answers to a few questions by email.
HomeAway, an international company, made the effort to fill
out one questionnaire per country; HomeExchange did the
same with three of their national branches: ScambioCasa,
IntercambioCasas and TrocaCasa. There were also 5 platforms
that gave international information: Bewelcome, Eatwith, Time
Republik, Blablacar and Ulule.
A special case is Taxistop, a Belgian umbrella not-for-profit
organisation, including Homelink, one of the researched
platforms. While they answered the questionnaire, they
provided data for Taxistop as a whole, which could not be
differentiated on a platform-by-platform basis, so their
responses were not used in the analysis.
Overall, the response rate was 31%, although the participation
rate is a little higher (37%) if we include the platforms
that only gave partial answers. However, at least 60% of
the platforms were not interested in participating in the
research. In Spain and Belgium the platforms showed greater
willingness to collaborate than in the other two countries.
The research design relied on the willingness of the
platforms to collaborate and be transparent about their
activities, but the response rate and absence of key data
would seem to indicate that platforms are not yet ready to
share such data. Additionally, a number of other factors may
have contributed to the low response rate:
According to the platforms, confidentiality issues, in
particular related to income and revenue, were a problem,
even though there was a confidentiality option in the
questionnaire. Some questions required detailed and very
specific information, such as the age of users, so the data
may not have been easy to gather or simply not available.
Furthermore, for international platforms, it may have
been difficult to provide national platform disaggregated
statistics. The exhaustiveness of the questionnaire may have
made it difficult and tiresome to fill it out and could have
contributed to respondent fatigue, while small platforms
stated that lack of time and resources were a problem.
TABLE 27: Collaborating platforms
BEWELCOME
BOLEIA (partially completed questionnaire)
COSE (IN)UTILI
EATWITH (PORTUGAL)
EATWITH (SPAIN)
ETECE
FREECYCLE
HOMEAWAY (ITALY)
HOMEAWAY (PORTUGAL)
HOMEAWAY (SPAIN)
HOMELINK (ITALY)
HUERTOS COMPARTIDOS
INTERCAMBIOCASAS
LIST MINUT (partially completed questionnaire)
NOLOTIRO
OP WIELEKES
PPL
REPAIR CAFE
TROCACASA
SCAMBIOCASA
SEGUNDAMANO
TAPAZZ (partially completed questionnaire)
TIME REPUBLIK (SPAIN)
TRIP4REAL
ULULE (partially completed questionnaire)
VERKAMI
03 Measuring the impact of CC: What the experts have to say… / 03.3. Survey of CC Platforms: Too soon for transparency

03.4. Results of Platforms'
Survey: Economic, social,
and environmental impact
assessment
The data presented in this section provides an overview of
the main results from the research. As we mentioned in
the previous section there were a number of reasons for
non-responses, in the tables they are identified as "non-
response" and included in the analysis. In this sense, caution
should be taken in interpreting the results. Where data
wasn't available it is identified as "ND, no data available",
and where the responding platform considered the question
not to be relevant for their activity it is identified as "NA, not
applicable".
The results are presented in four sections: Platform Profiles
and Organisational Information, Economic Impacts, Social
Impacts and Environmental Impacts.
3.4.1. Platform Profiles and Organisational Information
Year established: Although collaborative models and
organizations existed before the digital turn, new
technologies were the prime stimulant for a re-configured
and updated model. Most of the platforms were established
since the beginning of this century, with more than half
of them (54%) set-up since 2010. While a platform such as
HomeLink (1953), the oldest in the sample, was modernized
with a digital infrastructure it is still representative of
an older not-for-profit CC tradition, where the platforms
sustainability is based on subscription or membership
fees, rather than on commissions charged on the services
provided.
Platforms' legal status: The results show that a large
majority of the participating platforms are for-profit
organizations (73%). However, at 27% the proportion of
not-for-profits is substantial. The for-profits are most
typically 'corporations' and 'limited liability companies'. In
the not-for-profit sector the most common legal status is
'association'.
03 Measuring the impact of CC: What the experts have to say… / 03.4. Results of Platforms' Survey: Economic, social, and environmental impact assessment

3.4.2. Economic impact
Collaborative consumption is proposed to have a number
of economic benefits, such as stimulating economic growth
and employment, lowering barriers to entrepreneurship
and promoting innovation. In this section we examine
responses related to economic impact measures such as
users per employee, transactions per user, employment
rates and structure, revenue levels and tax compliance.
The users per employee ratio is an indicator of how
scalable and efficient platforms are. 16 platforms
responded to this question. Homeaway, Segundamano,
Verkami, Nolotiro and PPL have the highest user per
employee ratio (more than 10,000 users per employee),
while the majority have less than 10,000 users per
employee.
Most not-for-profit organizations rely on volunteers
(Huertos Compartidos, Cose(in)utili, Freecycle, Op Wielekes)
and have no paid workers. Repair Cafe is similar; they have
1 employee but volunteers do most of the work.
Transactions per user ratio: Only 8 platforms responded
to this question. Of those that did respond the average
transaction per user was less than 1.
Part-time employment rates: 17 platforms provided data
on the proportion of employees contracted on a part-
time basis. The majority of those that responded employ
more than 50% of their staff on a part-time basis.
Platform revenues: Most of the questions on platforms’
revenue were not answered or considered confidential.
The most frequent answer by not-for-profit platforms
was 0€, i.e. they don't have any income streams.
Tax compliance: None of the platforms answered the
tax compliance question; some indicated that it was for
confidentiality reasons.

3.4.3 Social impact
P2P platforms are also proposed to have social benefits
through the empowerment of citizens, the renewal of
beliefs about the importance of community values,
and the creation of wider networks of connections.
Additionally, consumers' needs may be better served
within systems where they have wider choices, can
compare between offerings and where virtual reputation
systems creates trust between users.
Offer take-up rate: The highly diversified nature of the
platforms makes it hard to establish comparisons on
the basis of products and services offered. To overcome
this difficulty a 'take-up rate' was calculated for each
platform. The take-up rate is the proportion of products/
services offered that were taken-up by consumers or that
became transactions (sales or exchanges), in the period
analysed. A 100% take-up rate means that at least one
transaction took place for every product/service offered.
Unfortunately only 5 platforms could or were willing to
provide data on this important indicator.
The number of providers (prosumers/ professionals)
to users (consumers): This indicator is designed to
identify the degree to which a platform is involved in
P2P collaboration/sharing or more focused on product/
service provision. For example, if a platform has the
same number of providers as consumers it means that
all users occupy both roles, providing and consuming
in a complete 100% collaborative network, whereby the
only way to consume is also to provide. 18 platforms
responded to this question and the results show
significant differences between them.
Only 4 platforms (ScambioCasa, Homelink, TrocaCasa
and Freecycle) operate as 100% complete collaborative
consumption system with no monetary exchanges. For
8 platforms, less than 40% of users were also providers,
indicating a CC system closer to the traditional model.
The proportion of users that are companies: As we
pointed out in Chapter 2 if a user on a CC platform is
a company it is important to inform the consumer as
the legal framework of the relationship is different than
when both parties are peers, i.e. prosumer to consumer
(no professional providers involved). The response rate to
this question was very low, only 3 platforms (Homelink,
List minut and Piggy bee) specified having users that are
companies.
Monetization and the average user’s earnings: More than
half (14) of the participating platforms responded. Of these,
twelve platforms are monetized and 4 (Homeaway in Italy,
Portugal, Spain and Etecé) stated that their users can earn
more than the minimum wage or equivalent (in the country
of operation). Notably, these are also the platforms that have
the greatest difference between the number of consumers
and providers.

Geographical focus: Only 7 platforms responded to this
question. Local transaction-oriented platforms involve
direct or physical interaction between users which, in the
context of the limited response base, were not-for-profit
and non-monetary organisations. Platforms like Etece,
an on-demand microtask platform, could be considered
hyperlocal as it mainly connects people that live in
the same neighbourhood. National and international
transaction-oriented platforms engage in services such
as home swapping and accommodation. Other innovative
projects such as Piggy Bee (a P2P courierplatform) are
also mostly orientated to international transactions.
Redistribution markets platforms are more diverse,
although they tend to produce more local and regional
interactions.
Involvement of users in decision-making: Here the
questionnaire sought to establish if users can influence
the decisions made by the platforms' managers. Twenty
one platforms responded. Most commonly, users can
make 'suggestions' (54%) but the platform makes no
commitment to respond. Only one platform (Tapazz)
stated that it operated a fully cooperative decision-
making model, as users are co-owners, while 4 platforms
replied that users can make proposals and they will
respond. 2 platforms stated that they had no system for
involving users in decision-making.

3.4.4 Environmental impact
As we mentioned in the first chapter, CC activities are
purported to have a number of environmental benefits,
including: extending the useful life of products, by reselling,
repairing or sharing them; increasing the efficiency of
transport and accommodation under a sharing paradigm;
promoting local interactions and reducing transportation;
fostering a sharing paradigm against hyper-consumption.
In order to measure environmental impact the study
sought to establish to what degree the platforms had
published environmental mission statements, if or
how they promoted sustainable values, to what degree
environmental impact was researched and we asked about
measures such as product reuse levels and the promotion
of ecological products.
Environmental mission statements: More than
half of the responding platforms claim to have an
environmental mission, assuming that there is a causal
link between their CC activities and a sustainable
economy. A small group of platforms do not have any
environmental statement (Bewelcome; Etece, Homeaway;
PPL; ScambioCasa) and five platforms answered that
environmental missions were “not applicable” to their
business (IntercambioCasas, Trip4Real, Time Republik,
Eatwith Spain and Eatwith Portugal).
Sustainable values: In a multiple response type question,
14 platforms identified their environmental values or
the way that their activity positively contributes to
environmental sustainability. Reducing hyper-consumption
was the most commonly stated value, followed by
waste reduction, CO2 reduction (claimed by carpooling
platforms, or reduced transport when products are
reused instead of buying new ones), energy efficiency and
localised consumption.
Environmental studies: Only a few platforms claimed to
have conducted studies on the environmental impact of
their activities: Segundamano, Repair Café and Blablacar.
These studies were mainly related to the reduction of
energy consumption and GHG reduction.
The research carried out by Segundamano was small,
but interesting because it was done in partnership with
an environmental organization (WWF), which ran the
study. Airbnb and Blablacar, two platforms that did
not participate in the study or that did so only very
superficially, organize their own environmental programs
but their participation in independent research is
necessary.
Promotion of environmentally sustainable and ecological
products: Huertos Compartidos responded that 100% of
their activity is ecological, as they promote small-scale
agriculture, which is usually associated with ecological
or organic production. HomeLink gave the same answer,
perhaps because they view private housing as being more
sustainable than hotels, although the connection is not
obvious. The platform OP Wielekes is entirely dedicated to
encouraging the use and re-use of bikes instead of cars, so
the connection is clear.
Support for environmental programs: 9 platforms (35%)
responded, stating that they supported or participated in
environmental programs or campaigns, which includes
'events' (E.g. Repair Cafe), 'awareness campaigns' (E.g. A
Bartering Day organised by Cose(In)Utili) and the platform's
'main area of activity', in the case of Huertos Compartidos
(organic agriculture), Nolotiro (product reusage).

Product reuse level: Four platforms provided data on
the products they help to reuse or give a second life.
Although, as the table shows, the figures vary greatly
from one platform to another, the type of products
on the four platforms is very similar: small/medium
sized, inexpensive and easily transportable objects
(bicycles, clothes, furniture, appliances, phones, etc.).
Although classic second-hand on-line markets such as
Segundamano produce a very large impact in terms
of quantity in comparison with other collaborative
initiatives, such as bartering or sharing, it could be
argued that second-hand markets produce a rebound-
effect, encouraging the purchase of new objects, or
increasing transportation usage.
TABLE 28: Number of products redistributed
Segundamano 1.275.958
Repair Café 21.600
Cose(in)utili 15.000
Op Wielekes 60
Inverse logistics: To make transport more economic
and environmental efficient, for example: by planning
transportation so that vehicles are not empty on
return journeys. Only two platforms, Cose(in)utili and
Op Wielekes, stated that they were engaged in inverse
logistics, with 30% and 80%, respectively, of their activity
based on this form of environmentally friendly logistics.

03.5. Conclusions
The findings presented in this chapter are based on
the desk research, Delphi study with 33 CC experts,
and a survey with 26 CC platforms. Undoubtedly, the
Delphi process has produced the most comprehensive
set of indicators for evaluating CC impacts produced to
date, and presents a clear and detailed guide to future
research in this area. On the downside, the response rate
to the survey was somewhat disappointing, however,
despite the fact that many of the participating platforms
were unwilling or unable to provide answers to all the
questions there are a number of important conclusions
that can be drawn:
3.5.1 Legal status and economic impacts
Key economic impact indicators:
The expert consensus established that CC economic
impacts should be measured in terms of its ability to:
increase consumer purchasing power; mobilize idle
capacity in the economy; stimulate local economies;
and its capacity to generate revenue for users based on
reputation; amongst others.
For-profit vs. not-for profit and economies of scale:
The results show that more than a quarter of CC
platforms are not-for-profit organisations, an important
finding as it indicates that their focus tends to be
on ethical issues related to social, community or
environmental outcomes, even though in terms of
scale their activities are small. On the other hand, the
for-profit platforms tend to be corporations and limited
liability companies with larger transaction numbers and
a focus on economies of scale. In this sense, we could
say that their impact per transaction on economic, social
or environmental issues may be small on an individual
transaction basis but due to volume very substantial. Both
models are important and legitimate.
Employment structure:
Most of the responding platforms employ more than 50%
of staff on a part-time basis. This could be indicative
of how CC platforms meet a labour market need for
job flexibility or it could also be a sign of increasingly
precarious working conditions associated with the
digital economy, and in particular with the more
established or international CC platforms.
Efficiency and productivity on CC platforms:
Although 10 platforms didn't answer the question on the
number of users per employee, the results still indicate
that CC platforms have high rates of productivity and
efficiency; a relatively small number of employees
can manage a large number of users and exchanges,
particularly in large transaction oriented platforms. While
this model can affect the structure of the job market,
requiring fewer employees per volume of transactions, it
also has positive impacts, as people's needs can be met
more easily, which increases consumer purchasing power
and lowers economic and environmental costs.
User engagement in CC transactions:
Although the response rate was low, the results show
that relatively speaking the number of transactions
per user is low, on average less than one. This is an
important measure as it evaluates user engagement in
collaborative exchanges and also worker productivity.
Revenue generation and tax compliance:
The overall response rate was disappointingly low, as
these are key economic indicators. From the limited
responses received, it is apparent that most not-for-profit
platforms don't generate any revenue at all and that some
small for-profit platforms generate just enough to employ
a small number of workers.
3.5.2. Social impact
Key CC social impact indicators:
The measurement of CC impact at social level is
significantly more complex than at economic or
environmental level; the experts identified over 20 relevant
indicators. Of these they decided that the top indicators
of social impact should focus on: the way that CC
builds social networks and communities through the
development or promotion of localised interactions and
connections, as well as stimulating off-line interactions
and encouraging non-monetized exchanges.
Non-monetized transactions:
Almost half of the platforms in the research provided P2P
transactions or interactions that are not monetized, or
monetized with an alternative currency. The existence
of non-monetized CC is positive as it is thought to be
good for participants' self-confidence and to accord users
additional socio-cultural value or social currency.
Consumers vs. providers:
One of the ways to assess the social impact of CC is to
consider the ratio of consumers to providers, as a measure
of the degree of 'community' as opposed to 'unidirectional
consumption'. Of the 18 platforms that responded to the
question the results show that only 4 platforms operate
as systems whereby all consumers are also providers,
i.e. you have to give to get and transactions are often
non-monetized, such as homeswapping. Conversely 8
platforms operate what might be termed unidirectional
markets, i.e. a large number of consumers and a small
number of providers. However, these types of platforms
are very varied and include crowdfunding, bartering and
access-to-land platforms.
Proportion of users that are companies:
Very few companies responded that they have users that
are companies, however it seems obvious that they exist.
03 Measuring the impact of CC: What the experts have to say… / 03.5. Conclusions

As we mentioned in chapter 2 the clear identification of
companies who operate as providers is very important
for the protection of consumer rights and empowerment.
Decentralized vs. centralized governance:
CC is proposed to shift the balance of power from
centralized organizations to distributed networks
of people, however we found that the centralized
governance model is the most common in the sample,
which is far from collaborative and participative
consumption. Only one platform (not-for-profit) identified
itself as having a fully cooperative model (users are co-
owners and co-creators).
3.5.3. Environmental impact
Key CC environmental impact indicators:
The experts reached a high degree of consensus on the
most important environmental indicators, both generally
and across the three CC modalities. The indicators
focus on the ability of CC to promote and sustain
localised consumption, which in turn affects 'transport
efficiency'. They also identified product re-use and 'waste
reduction' as key measures and the capacity of CC to
connect consumers and producers without the need for
intermediaries.
Evidence based promotion of environmental benefits of
CC activity:
More than half of the platforms claimed to have an
environmental mission statement or sustainability
objective. However, the research also established that
none of the platforms that answered the survey have
commissioned any external assessment or environmental
KPI‐based (or equivalent) performance programs and that
only one conducted any externally validated research
(Segundamano).
Consequently, it seems fair to conclude that most claims
to environmental benefits are based more on hearsay
than any evidence. Similarly, there seems to be little
awareness of potentially negative impacts. For example,
some platforms responded that their CC activity was
contributing to the fight against 'hyperconsumption'
and post-industrial paradigm change, as well as CO2
and waste reduction, but these claims are not evidence
based and ignore the fears raised by some that CC might
stimulate unnecessary consumption through the so called
'rebound effect'.
Measuring environmental impact:
This is not to say that highlighting potential
environmental and sustainability benefits isn't a positive
step, but it should be evidence based or both public
administrators and consumers will begin to see such
claims as marketing strategies rather than substantive
discourses.
In this sense, low participation and response rates to
research projects such as this only serves to hinder
attempts to bring CC into an evidence-based era.
Lack of awareness and involvement in environmental
concerns:
The other side to this coin is that many platforms
have no 'environmental mission statement' or claim
that it isn't applicable to their business, which is also
clearly not true (be it positive, neutral or negative).
CC platforms, like any business or organisation, must
consider the environmental impact of their activity.
Furthermore, some platforms may be having very
positive impacts on the environment and economic
sustainability but are not investing in establishing how
this might be measured and subsequently promoted to
users as an added value.
Greater awareness of environmental impacts by platform
managers and greater communication to users about
potential environmental benefits would help promote and
extend sustainable practices.
03 Measuring the impact of CC: What the experts have to say… / 03.5. Conclusions

04
Platforms:
From utility to
community
04.1. A social netnography
of platforms
Firstly, it is pertinent to ask: What is Netnography?
Basically, it's a methodological approach that can be
used to understand social processes that emerge in
on-line environments, such as the building of networks
of interest on social media sites. It focuses on the way
that the design of a particular digital platform and its
unique characteristics shape social interactions, by
promoting and enabling particular opportunities and
transmitting specific values. The design of a platform
permits certain types of interaction between its users,
the system and the community administrators, and the
rules that govern the site are determinant of the social
interactions and the culture that it promotes.
The Social Netnographic Protocol employed in this study
was designed ex-novo for this research to analyse the
features, structures, communications, and technologies
used by platforms to make collaborative consumption
possible. The protocol identifies and defines a series of
items and questions that are then used by independent
researchers to evaluate the websites. The protocol
ensures that each of the researchers evaluates each
platform with exactly the same criteria.
Structure of the Netnographic Protocol
Based on the Delphi study, the items were organized
into four different groups, each designed to assess a
different aspect of a platforms' operations, including:
<<functionality and usability>>, <<trust and
virtual reputation>>, <<rules and policies>>, and
<<community footprint>>.
-- Functionality and usability: This dimension is
concerned with how a platform enables interaction
between peers, through identity management and
other communicative and informational systems.
Using the protocol the researchers evaluate the
sophistication of 12 separate but inter-related
features, including: identity and profile building,
user status systems, interconnectivity, content and
customization, amongst other.
-- Trust and virtual reputation: In P2P marketplaces,
trust has to be accrued and developed by peers.
Consequently, Virtual Reputation is one of the main
resources available to peers to create networks of
interest through trustworthiness. The platform and
its design play a major role in this process, acting
as an institution that organizes and regulates
interactions and that encourages attitudes that
promote reputation building. In this dimension,
nine items are assessed, including: user reviews and
ratings systems, statistics on past performance and
ID verification options.
-- Rules and policies: this aspect considers how
platforms provide a safe environment for
communication, transactions and exchanges. The
researcher assesses whether codes of conduct and
behavioural norms are well established and clearly
published, as well as evaluating monitoring, problem
solving systems, and methods for flagging, blocking
and banning pernicious users.
-- Community footprint: This dimension relates to how
platforms connect internal activity to the external
environment and so measures overall 'social' impact
on the community, society and the environment. It
assesses sharing culture and the development of
collective resources beyond pragmatic goals, to create
positive impacts on society and the environment. The
researchers evaluate the existence and sophistication
of social and environmental missions, geographical
reach, local development, and the promoting of
collaborative culture, amongst others.
See Annex 2 for a full list of the items (and their weights)
included in the Netnographic protocol.
Type of items and weights
As we've noted, within each of these dimensions the
researcher must rate each platform on a series of items.
However, it should be borne in mind that the protocol
uses two types of items, one objective (observational)
and the other subjective (evaluation):
-- Observational items are based on the systematic
observation of a website's features, i.e. those features
that can objectively be said to exist or not. Observing
a range of features the evaluator attributes a score
(following a 5-point scale) on the basis of how well
developed each feature is from non-existent to very
advanced.
-- Evaluation items are based on a completely
subjective evaluation of how the platform performs
on certain dimensions, also using a 5-point Likert
(agreement) scale. Here the observer has an item that
describes a feature or capacity of the website and
must agree or disagree with the description.
Finally, based on the Delphi study, each item was accorded
a weight depending on the importance of the item,
within each category. Observational items received higher
weightings than evaluation (subjective) items.
Fieldwork
The fieldwork took place from June to July 2015.
In order to avoid bias on the part of the researchers, a
triangulation systems was employed whereby a number of
observers (experts) evaluated each website and the mean
score (evaluation) was used to provide a more accurate
measurement than a single evaluator score.

04.2. Platform performance
on social dimensions
Before presenting the results of the multivariate analysis
in the following section, here we look at the general
results from the Netnographic profile in the three sectors
that we studied (Access instead of Property, Redistribution
markets and Collaborative Lifestyles). The purpose of the
analysis is to illustrate how the protocol distinguishes
between different 'types' of platforms and to explore
how design, technology and informational content affect
social interactions and collaboration on CC platforms.
The platforms described in this section are for illustrative
purposes only as it would be impossible to comment on
all 70.
4.2.1. Access instead of property platforms
In general, the platforms in the Access instead of Property
sector performed best on 'trust and reputation systems'
followed by 'monitoring' and 'functionality' and lowest on
'community footprint'. Six platforms (Airbnb, BeWelcome,
Blablacar, Woningoppas, Homelink and Trampolinn)
received an overall score of 3.1 or higher, while the best
performing platform on average was Airbnb (3.8).
It is notable that in general the highest scoring platforms
do considerably worse on community footprint. The
highest scores on community footprint are achieved by
three mid-table platforms (Instrumnetheek, Wijdelen and
Tapazz), all of which are national oriented platforms with
a specific focus on the environment.
On a country-by-country basis, it is worth pointing out
that international platforms were given the highest scores,
followed by platforms from Belgium and Italy. Spanish and
Portuguese platforms seem to do poorly in comparison,
although Trampolinn in Spain scores relatively well.
TABLE 29: Social assessment of 'access' platforms
Platforms
Functionality
& usability
Trust
resources
& virtual
reputation
Monitoring
rules and
policies
Community
footprint
Total
test
result
Weights 28,40% 24,30% 25,20% 22,10% 100%
Airbnb 4,00 4,35 4,20 2,40 3,78
Bewelcome 3,68 3,25 4,30 2,05 3,37
Blablacar 3,38 4,00 3,20 2,40 3,27
Woningoppas 2,93 4,10 3,90 1,75 3,20
Homelink 3,63 4,00 3,30 1,55 3,18
Trampolinn 3,98 4,10 2,40 1,75 3,12
Baratto Matto 3,03 3,05 3,00 3,25 3,07
Home Exchange 3,15 3,40 3,20 1,60 2,88
Tapazz 2,18 3,10 3,20 3,00 2,84
Housetrip 2,90 3,35 2,90 1,30 2,66
Social Car 2,43 2,80 2,80 2,15 2,55
Instrumnetheek 1,48 1,85 3,10 3,70 2,47
Amovens 2,68 2,85 2,20 1,55 2,35
Homeaway 2,70 3,05 2,10 1,20 2,30
Wijdelen
(Peerby)
2,10 1,95 2,00 3,25 2,29
Locloc 2,08 2,65 2,30 2,10 2,28
Boleia 2,58 2,20 1,40 2,35 2,14
Roadsharing 2,00 2,60 1,00 1,95 1,88
Uberpop
Brussels
1,73 1,70 2,30 1,75 1,87
Note: 5-point rating scale from 1 to 5
Looking at the four dimensions analysed and the features
of the platforms that received the highest scores, there is
a number of observations that we can make:
Functionality & usability: Airbnb, a highly developed
website with sophisticated facilities for enabling and
stimulating communication, received the highest score:
users have multiple options and tools for communicating
(E.g. videos, wishlists, etc.). A user's (prosumer) status
display is based on several factors, as well as comments
by peers. The platform also has a sub domain that lets
users create a personalized Airbnb symbol and the
commenting system is very well developed.
Trust resources & virtual reputation: Airbnb also received
high scores on this dimension. The platform has advanced
and well-designed features to promote the development
of trust between users (for instance, a host's identity is
verified by the platform, and hosts presentation videos
are promoted by the platform as a resource to stimulate
trust.). Other platforms that offer a variety of resources
for building trust and virtual reputation are Trampolinn,
Woningoppas and the international platform, Blablacar.
Monitoring rules and policies: Bewelcome is an example
of a site with very well developed monitoring rules and
polices; platform staff play an active role in moderating
conflicts and misbehaviour. Airbnb is also notable in that
it provides detailed instructions about what is expected
from both hosts and guests and what constitutes
acceptable behaviour from both parties.
Community footprint: In general this dimension is
not prominently developed by the platforms in this
sector, although, there are some interesting exceptions.
Instrumentheek, a local platform operating in Belgium,
has a clear social and environmental mission. Other
exceptions are Peerby, the Dutch platform for exchanging
goods between neighbours, and Tapazz, a platform that
has invested in the promotion of social cooperation and
local business for more sustainable car use.
03 Platforms: From utility to community / 04.2. Platform performance on social dimensions

4.2.2. Redistribution markets platforms
On average the Redistribution sector received the lowest
scores from the netnographic observers than either of the
other two modalities. However, while they did more poorly
on 'trust and reputation systems' and 'monitoring' and
'functionality', they performed comparatively better on
'community footprint'.
Notable in this sector is that the platforms are more
consistent, receiving similar scores across the four
dimensions. An exception is Freecycle, which scores well
on both 'monitoring' and 'community footprint', but quite
poorly on 'functionality' and 'trust and reputation'.
On a country-by-country basis, it is worth highlighting
that the three platforms that scored the highest are all
Italian. The investment by Italian redistribution market
platforms in community footprint, through the promotion
of reusing and sharing as a social and environmental
activity, stands out. In general, Spanish platforms occupy
the lower positions in this sector.
TABLE 30: Social assessment of 'redistribution markets'
platforms
Platforms
Functionality
& usability
Trust
resources
& virtual
reputation
Monitoring
rules and
policies
Community
footprint
Total
test
result
Weights 28,40% 24,70% 24,10% 22,80% 100%
Cose (In)Utili 3,23 3,30 3,20 3,25 3,24
Reoose 2,48 2,50 2,90 3,65 2,85
Zero Relativo 2,30 2,35 2,90 3,25 2,67
Iederen Ruilt 2,95 2,20 2,10 2,50 2,46
Creciclando 2,45 2,50 1,90 2,95 2,44
Freecycle 1,63 1,35 3,20 3,30 2,32
Manzanas
Usadas
1,78 2,50 3,30 1,40 2,24
Segundamano 1,70 1,55 2,50 2,45 2,03
Nolotiro 1,95 1,95 1,00 3,20 2,01
Troka Ok 1,53 1,55 1,80 1,90 1,68
Percentil 1,35 1,55 2,40 1,35 1,65
Looking at the scores given on a dimension-by-dimension
basis there are a number of points worth noting:
Functionality & usability: The highest scoring platform,
Cose (in)utili, has several features to help improve the
on-line experience and an advanced level of functional
interactivity (i.e. the platform permits searches by:
person, type of object, geographical zone, interactive
maps…). Also notable is the Belgian platform Iederen
Ruilt, a site that is a crossover between a traditional
classified ads site and social networking. It has a very well
developed functional interactive design, whereby users
can create their own exchange groups, offer items and go
'shopping' in others' lists.
Trust resources & virtual reputation: This dimension is
very well developed on the Italian platforms Cose (in)utili,
where users are rated as giver-receivers in the bartering
process, and on Baratto Matto, which has an advanced
virtual reputation system.
Monitoring rules and policies. The Spanish site Manzanas
Usadas (second-hand Apple products) has a very clearly
stated code of conduct and plays an active role in the
moderation of problems and any misbehaviour.
Community footprint: Reoose scores high on this
dimension because it promotes collaboration, open
exchanges, co-responsibility and self-management.
Freecycle, a platform based on donations, also got a good
score on most community footprint items, because it
stresses the benefits of community and collaboration, has
a very clear environmental mission (waste reduction, etc.)
and a local focus.

4.2.3. Collaborative lifestyle platforms
On average the Collaborative Lifestyle platforms scored
higher than the platforms in the other two modalities.
These platforms were particularly strong on 'reputation
and trust', followed by 'functionality', but, in contrast to
the Access Instead of Property platforms, they also scored
comparatively well on 'community footprint'
Notable in this sector is the diversity of ranking across
the dimensions. For example, Gnammo received high
evaluations on all three dimensions, with the exception
of 'community footprint' where it scored quite poorly.
Conversely, two Spanish platforms, Huertos Compartidos
and La Colmena Dice que Sí, got very high scores
on 'community footprint', but scored very poorly on
'functionality' and 'reputation and trust'.
Comparing across countries, once again Italian platforms
occupy the top spots.
TABLE 31: Social assessment of 'lifestyles' platforms
Platforms
Functionality
& usability
Trust
resources
& virtual
reputation
Monitoring
rules and
policies
Community
footprint
Total
test
result
Weights 26,80% 22,30% 22,30% 28,50% 100%
Derev 3,98 4,10 3,70 2,75 3,59
Time Republik 4,83 4,05 2,20 2,45 3,39
Cirosel 2,83 3,50 3,50 3,30 3,26
Gnammo 4,23 4,00 2,90 2,05 3,26
La Colmena
Que Dice Si
1,68 3,10 2,70 4,35 2,99
Eatwith 3,18 4,10 2,30 2,35 2,95
List Minut 2,93 4,00 2,90 2,10 2,92
So Crowd 2,55 3,25 2,50 3,35 2,92
Mymicroinvest 3,33 3,85 2,30 2,30 2,92
Etece 2,73 4,25 2,80 2,15 2,92
Peoplecooks 3,23 3,05 2,80 2,35 2,84
Produzioni
Dal Baso
3,08 3,45 2,50 2,25 2,79
Wwoof 1,73 2,90 2,50 3,90 2,78
Verkami 3,08 3,60 2,10 2,35 2,77
Ulule 3,15 3,60 2,10 2,15 2,73
Huertos
Compartidos
1,65 2,05 2,50 4,45 2,73
Crowdin 3,68 2,75 2,70 1,75 2,70
Ppl 2,93 3,45 2,10 2,35 2,69
Gudog 2,55 3,65 2,10 2,25 2,61
Bonappetour 2,75 3,40 2,60 1,85 2,60
Trip4real 2,90 3,55 1,90 1,80 2,51
Crowdfunding
Italia
2,13 2,80 2,00 1,80 2,16
Repair Cafe 1,45 1,80 1,40 3,45 2,09
Piggy Bee 1,55 1,35 1,50 1,70 1,54
To illustrate the reasons for the evaluations in this sector
there are number of observations that can be made on
the scores in each dimension:
Functionality & usability: The on-line time bank
platform Time Republik received the highest scores in
this dimension, as it has a very advanced system for
user profile building, user status system, functional
interactivity design and interconnectivity. Gnammo is
also worth pointing out for its score in this dimension,
as it has a well developed system for encouraging user
interactivity; users can “follow” each other so as to stay
up to date on their activities and the platform also has a
good messaging and chat feature.
Trust resources & virtual reputation: Etece, a Spanish
microtask platform, stands out for the implementation
of a sophisticated system for cognitive information,
including a formal 'identity verification system'.
Monitoring rules and policies: Derev, an Italian
crowdfunding platform, received a very good score as it
displays a detailed code of conduct stating the rules that
must be followed in the crowdfunding process. Cirosel, a
Belgian LET system, has explicit rules of behaviour and
cooperative norms.
Community footprint: The small Spanish platform,
Huertos Compartidos, is excellent in 'community footprint'
as it has a clear environmental and social objective that is
prominently displayed.

04.3. Typologies:
community, network, and
transaction platforms
In the previous section the basic results began to shed
some light on performance differences between platforms
with some notable trends on the basis of platform
modalities and country of operation. In order to explore
the data in greater detail a multivariate analytic technique,
called factor analysis, was used to explore whether
platforms had inter-correlations that were sufficiently
strong that they could be considered to represent a distinct
typology. Using this technique platforms are grouped into
clusters (factors), according to the their "regression scores".
The results of the factor analysis identified three
statistically independent groups1
, which were subjectively
validated and a description of each "type" developed. The
three typologies identified are:
-- Network oriented platforms
-- Transaction oriented platforms
-- Community oriented platforms
These three groups exhibit consistent characteristics
that can help to develop an alternative approach to the
study and understanding of Collaborative Consumption.
Table 32 outlines the main characteristics of each "type",
their scores from the protocol and some examples of
representative platforms. The development of these
typologies, through this multivariate technique, adds
considerable sophistication to our understanding of what
distinguishes one platform from another by moving
beyond simple 'sectoral' analysis.
1/ Using Bartlett Test (> 0.5) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test
GROUP 1: NETWORK ORIENTED PLATFORMS
This group had the highest scores in the 'functionality
and usability' and 'trust and reputation' categories. The
main representatives of this group are the international,
well-known platforms that pioneered the development of
the Collaborative Economy in the digital marketplace, i.e.
Airbnb, Blablacar, Time Republik, Eatwith.
These platforms enable highly dynamic, efficient and
reliable P2P collaborative interactions. The group includes
platforms that build on the principles of interconnectivity,
individual networking, reputation as a new currency,
promotion of social capital and users’ individual personal
branding. However, their superior technical features do
not necessarily involve the promotion of “collaborative or
communitarian culture” (like the platforms in Group 3). On
the contrary, they offer high quality resources for users to
develop a complex identity and build a virtual reputation
and social capital in order to achieve individual goals.
GROUP 2: TRANSACTION ORIENTED
This is the group that registered the lowest overall
scores. It represents a model of Collaborative
Consumption focused on transactions. Many of these
platforms offer simple services, such as second hand
markets, that do not require users to build trust or
to develop complex on-line identities, as is the case
in other collaborative or sharing experiences (such as
homeswapping, timebanks, carsharing, etc.). Platforms in
this group include Iederen Ruilt (Belgium), Creciclando
(Spain), Amovens (Spain). Taking another platform in this
group, Homeaway, as a case in point it can be observed
that it has a high quality, carefully designed platform, with
good usability, but, it has less developed functionalities
from the point of view of Collaborative Consumption. This
platform still follows a more centralized model, with a
clear distinction between providers and consumers, which
would seem to explain why they don't invest as much in
the creation of a platform that encourages more complex
P2P interaction.
In general it can be said that the platforms in this Group
opt for simple systems that enable quick and pragmatic
interactions between users. These platforms permit
exchanges between users, making products and services
more accessible. They also introduce dynamism to the
economy, without investing in complex technical resources
for individual self-management and branding, such as
those in the network oriented platforms.
GROUP 3: COMMUNITY ORIENTED
Platforms in Group 3 have the highest scores in
'community footprint', but they also have good scores
in the other categories. They have a more community-
focused perspective of the sharing economy, promoting
environmentally sustainable practices and awareness,
better social connections, and stronger communities.
These platforms are characterised by their hyper/
local orientation, non-monetization and/or alternative
currencies, and their not-for-profit legal status.
These platforms are usually well-established projects
built for the community and/or they have clear social
or environmental mission statements that make these
issues an important part of their identity.. They tend to
focus on the development of connections and interactions
within communities, generating services that help social
or local initiatives to grow by creating a community
of collaboration and sharing rather than pragmatic
individualistic exchanges. For example, projects such as
WWOFF (Portugal), La Colmena que dice que Sí or Huertos
Compartidos (both Spain), are focused on organic farming
or the growing of food produce for personal consumption.
03 Platforms: From utility to community / 04.3. Typologies: community, network, and transaction platforms

TABLE 32: Typology of platforms
ORIENTATION SCORES
REPRESENTATIVE
PLATFORMS
Network oriented:
produces networks
of interests, builds
social capital and
virtual reputation
for the individual
user. Provides social
experiences.
High scores in
general, especially in
digital development
International
platforms, e.g.:
Airbnb, Blablacar,
Time Republik
Transaction
oriented: pragmatic
and simple exchange
interactions. Provides
economic resources
to the user.
Low overall scores
Redistribution
market platforms,
e.g.: Segundamano,
Nolotiro
Community
oriented: builds
social connections
and bonds within the
community.
-- Medium scores in
digital development
-- Highest scores
in Community
Footprint
Local, not-for-profit,
non-monetized/
alternative currency,
e.g.: Repair Café,
CiroSel
TABLE 33: Average scores by netnographic typology
03 Platforms: From utility to community / 04.3. Typologies:community, network, and transaction platforms

GROUP 1:
Network oriented
GROUP 2:
Transaction oriented
GROUP 3:
Community oriented
03 Platforms: From utility to community / 04.3. Typologies:community, network, and transaction platforms

04.4. Case studies:
illustrative examples of
different approaches to CC
In this section we provide a brief summary of the
activities and characteristics of a selection of platforms
in each of the three typologies, as a way of illustrating
in more detail the type of platforms in the Network,
Transaction and Community oriented groups. The
platforms described here are for illustrative purposes only.
EXAMPLES OF
NETWORK ORIENTED PLATFORMS
AIRBNB is the largest platform
dedicated to peer-to-peer
accommodation provision, present in over 34,000 cities
and 190 countries. It gets the highest scores of all the
platforms included in the study. It offers users multiple
features to present themselves and their properties
(videos, social media, wishlists, creative features, etc.). The
trust system is highly developed and tries to encourage
users to be social while they are on line and off line. To
ease any fears of renting a private apartment, the platform
provides hosts with a substantial guarantee. On the other
hand, it should be borne in mind that the social features
promoted by the platform are part of a for-profit business
model, which distinguishes Airbnb from platforms whose
main purpose is social or environmental.
BLABLACAR is the world's largest
ride-sharing platform with 20
million users across 19 countries.
It received its highest score for trust and reputation
building. The user status ranking system is based on
several variables and is a highly developed feature for
building on-line reputation. A user that obtains the
highest category -Blablacar Ambassador- has successfully
passed a series of tests to become recognised as a very
trustworthy driver.
PPL is a Portuguese crowdfunding
platform that connects
entrepreneurs/start-ups with
people (investors) who share the same interests. It aims
to help realise the potential of community-based ideas.
PPL's scores are very similar to other crowdfunding
platforms. They received high scores in 'functionality
and usability', as well as in 'trust and virtual reputation'.
The system is easy to use and well developed, making
the fund raising process relatively straightforward. 'Codes
of conduct' are limited, mainly because most of the
interactions are validated by the platform before being
accepted. The community footprint score of this platform
is not particularly high, as its impact is mostly economic,
rather than social or environmental. In this sense, the
community footprint of crowdfunding platforms is indirect
and limited to the kind of projects they promote.
GNAMMO is the first Italian on-
line platform dedicated to social
eating experiences. The platform
allows users (chefs and experienced
amateurs) to organize meals and events at their own
residence, where they can host people from all over Italy
and other countries. The platform has two modalities:
“home restaurants” and “personal chef”. The intention is
to create a stimulating social situation in which the food
becomes a vehicle for social experience. Gnammo is a
very well designed platform in terms of how it encourages
social connections and collaborative interactions. Its main
strength is hyper-connectivity, as it is linked to several
social media platforms. It also encourages the building of
a virtual reputation as an important part of users' profiles.
In other words, everything on the website is designed to
facilitate and improve social experiences, which is the
primary purpose of the platform.
03 Platforms: From utility to community / 04.4. Case studies: illustrative examples of different approaches to CC

EXAMPLES OF
TRANSACTION ORIENTED PLATFORMS
UBER POP is a peer-to-peer
instant ride-sharing service
that connects passengers with
drivers in urban areas. The service is very similar to
conventional taxi services, except that any licence holder
can become an Uber driver. The scores obtained by
Uber are very low in all the dimensions assessed. In
terms of 'functionality and usability', the architecture of
the platform is very poor in that it doesn't encourage
collaborative exchanges and user communication. The
system is designed to enable automatic interactions
between prosumers and consumers, regulated by
geo-localization and algorithms that calculate prices
and times. Its model is based on efficiency and quick
response, with very little emphasis on social features or
human-to-human exchanges.
HOMEAWAY is a house-renting
platform that connects property
owners and managers with
holidaymakers looking for accommodation. Its websites
and digital systems are of a high quality, but it didn't
receive a high score on 'functionality & usability' due to
poorly developed systems for collaborative interaction
and P2P communication. In this sense, Homeaway
operates within a more traditional commercial online
paradigm. However, basic functionalities, such as the
search option, photograph galleries and design are well
developed.
SEGUNDAMANO is a second-
hand market platform where
users can publish ads for free.
Consumers can contact advertisers via the website or
through their phone number, which is usually included
in the ad. The dynamic of the system is clear and
simple; there is no need for special social features or
functionalities, nor any particular need to build trust,
as they are usually one-off exchanges. The scores on
'Codes of Conduct' are relatively high, with procedures,
instructions and advice on how to publish ads, what is
permitted, etc.

EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED
PLATFORMS
THE FREECYCLE NETWORK™ is a
grassroots, local and entirely non-
profit movement of people who
give stuff away (and get) for free.
Usability is good and interaction is easy because the
sites system is intentionally simple; users' profiles only
have a name and email, there are no status features
and users communicate by email when necessary. Local
group members can develop a relationship or engage in
repetitive interactions by publishing lists of items (that
they are seeking or want to give away) and through
messaging systems or in face-to-face interactions in
organised local group meetings. The platform promotes
environmental awareness as the main motivation for
participating in the “gifting movement”, which serves to
develop and promote new attitudes, giving it a high score
on 'community footprint'.
WWOOF links volunteers
with organic farms or
smallholdings. In return for volunteer help on their
farms, WWOOF hosts offer food, accommodation and
opportunities to learn about organic lifestyles. The
platform got a high score on 'community footprint' due
to its investment in the promotion of organic farming
and local environmental projects. This platform has
a double impact in terms of environment: it helps
improve sustainability while also raising awareness and
knowledge about environmental practices. Furthermore,
its main objective is to build a social and cultural bridge
between urban and rural areas.
HUERTOS COMPARTIDOS
connects landowners with
people who want to work
the land. The platform
has resources for promoting self-employment and
solidarity gardens for disadvantaged social collectives.
In addition, the platform helps gardeners to obtain
ecological certification. The platform also has a retail
shop with ecologically certified products. It scores high
on 'community footprint' because it promotes local
production, self-employment and long-term cooperative
relationships.
TAPAZZ, a peer-to-peer car rental service,
is a good example of a platform with
strong 'codes of conduct'. It has a reliable
and easy to use system for peer-to-peer car
rental. Users can upload legal documents,
and the system ensures, as much as possible, that the
interaction is positive and safe for both parties. The
system performs well on the development of trust
between users, and also has codes of conduct that helps
increase the satisfaction of both parties.
COSE(IN)UTILI, is an Italian
bartering platform offering direct
bartering (exchange of goods
services without money) and
exchanges mediated by an alternative currency (credits)
and time exchange. These types of activities improve
social connections and promote an alternative culture
to consumerism, giving it a high score on 'community
footprint'. Moreover, CoseInutili also received very good
scores on 'functionality and usability' and 'trust and
reputation'. The design of the site is simple, despite the
architecture being complex. The platform permits a
wide range of social interactions and encourages users
to contact other nearby users and to get to know them
better through their on-line wishlists and activities.

04.5. Conclusions
One of the main questions that we set out to answer
with this research was whether or not the so-called
collaborative economy really involves 'collaborative'
interaction or if it is just a new way of doing business.
Through a very thorough and methodologically rigorous
study we developed and implemented a completely
original research tool (the Netnographic protocol), which
we used to study the way that CC platforms organise and
enable social interaction through webiste design, features
and informational content.
The analysis shows that the balance between business
and collaboration varies greatly from one platform
to another, even within the same sector. A platform's
orientation is not just a question of what they do but also
of how they do it.
In Chapter 1 (Survey of Users) we noted that the
satisfaction of users of CC platforms is the same whether
they are interacting with strangers or with people they
know, so evidently most of the platforms are creating
sufficiently safe environments for transactions to occur.
The key difference between platforms is whether they are
focused solely on utility (providing services to users in a
safe environment) or community, in the sense of paradigm
change and the creation of a new economy where the
values of sharing and collaboration are important.
The multivariate analysis showed, with a high degree
of statistical confidence, that platforms could be clearly
distinguished according to their functionality, monitoring
systems, codes of conduct and community footprint.
The analysis identified three groups with the following
characteristics:
-- 46% of the platforms in the study are network
oriented, which means they are aimed at creating
networks of users connected by their common
interests and digital reputation.
-- 28% of the platforms in the study are transaction
oriented; their purpose is to facilitate easy and
practical exchanges between users. This group is
primarily based on an "offer and demand" model.
-- 26% of the platforms in the study are community
oriented. Their model is a transformative paradigm
that aims to create stronger communities and to
promote more sustainable consumption habits,
making it possible for a collaborative economy to
flourish.
The true value of the
platforms is the quality of the
connections they generate
between their users and
their capacity to create a
safe environment by using
rules, good information,
virtual reputation systems,
guarantees or mediation.
Most platforms really offer
people a practical solution
to their daily problems and
just a few of them also aim to
transform society by creating
an economy with fairer
values.
03 Platforms: From utility to community / 04.5. Conclusions

Recommendations to Collaborative Consumption
platforms
The evaluation of the 70 CC platforms included in this
study has shown that there are significant differences
in their orientation, purpose and level of digital
development. There are many positive aspects related
to the way that platforms operate, but there are also
areas where they can improve the way that they interact
with consumers. From the results of the legal and social
analysis, there are a number of recommendations that
can be made to the platforms. These recommendations
have been developed not only to help ensure that users
are fully and adequately protected while engaging in CC
transactions, but should also to help improve the quality
of peer-to-peer relations and the service quality provided
from platforms to users.
1. Platforms should consider that their main role is to
create a safe environment for the users to interact.
2. Every platform should set out easily understood
interaction rules that are also clearly visible to
users. All the legal information and the terms of use
should be available in the language of the country
of operation.
3. Platforms should verify that providers have
adequate insurance cover in place or provide
adequate insurance policies where necessary. For
instance, transportation platforms should make
sure that drivers offering services have adequate
insurance, as standard car insurance might not
cover such activities. Similarly, accommodation
platforms should offer providers insurance cover for
possible damages to property.
4. For both the prosumer and consumer roles,
platforms should inform all users about the
appropriate and applicable consumer legislation
in their sector of operation and country. Such
information should be clearly expressed and easily
understood, and its compliance simplified as much
as possible.
5. Clarify and improve consumer protection: too
often, consumers do not get enough information
(sometimes none) about the platform they are using,
the activity they are involved in, and their basic
consumer rights (i.e. cancellation policies, privacy
information). Furthermore, sometimes, these rights
are not respected, even when recognised.
6. As the legal nature of a transaction (i.e. consumer
rights and regulations) is dependent on the
status of the provider (peer or professional), it is
recommended that platforms develop filters or
appropriate tools, so that the consumer always
knows the status of the party (peer or professional
provider) they are dealing with.
7. Platforms should create reliable trust systems,
including control mechanisms such as cross peer
review (a review is not published until the other
party has also provided one) and user identity
verification. We also recommend that users 'own'
their virtual reputation so that in the future such
reputations can be used across various platforms
and function like a type of currency.
8. There is a need to improve and develop effective
mechanisms for redress. Such mechanisms should
provide good tracking of conflict resolution and
proper records of the solutions agreed between
the parties. The introduction of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) would also be a welcome
development, as this tends not to be employed in
P2P conflict resolution.
9. It would be beneficial to the entire shared economy
area if CC platforms provided greater transparency
and accountability on economic, social and
environmental impact areas. Transparency and
accountability is the only way to resolve the current
lack of evidence on CC impacts.
10. Platforms should make greater efforts to measure
the triple impact of their activities at economic, social
and environmental levels. Objective, independent and
methodologically reliable figures are essential to avoid
"collaborative-washing" (misleading claims about the
benefits of CC) and to empower user decision-making.
The indicators developed during this project could act
as a starting point for such research.
Based on the research results there are a number
of recommendations that can be made to both CC
platforms and policy makers to improve the users
experience, reinforce safety and clarify responsibilities.
Recommendations
for more and better
collaboration

Demands to policy makers and public administration
It is important to remember that on-line P2P Collaborative
Consumption involves relationships at different levels:
between platforms and users, and also between users
themselves. Adding to the complexity of the relationships,
there is also an abundance of legislation that applies to
this area: e-commerce requirements, consumer protection
laws, civil codes, tax regulations, etc. However, our research
showed that CC activities are already being conducted in a
relatively safe environment (see Chapter 1). In this sense,
CC doesn't require extra bureaucracy and unnecessary
regulations, but it would be very beneficial if legislators
and policy makers developed a few clear principles:
1. Authorities should ensure market unity across
different regions and countries by introducing a
common European level framework to protect users,
where activities are provided across borders, such as
transportation and accommodation.
2. They should also undertake market surveillance
and promote a competitive environment to avoid
the creation of oligopolies and monopolies in
collaborative consumption.
3. It is necessary to clarify platforms' roles and
responsibilities: users deserve to have clear
legislation that specifies responsibility when conflicts
or problems occur.
4. Legislators should define the parameters that
distinguish a private and a professional activity.
Ideally, such a consensus should work at European
level.
5. P2P CC shouldn't be over-regulated; P2P
relationships would benefit from being deregulated
and simplified. On the other hand, in B2C
relationships, the existing consumer regulations
should be reinforced at institutional level and be
respected by professional CC providers.
6. Legislators should acknowledge "the prosumer" as
a new type of economic actor. They should define
simple rules delimiting tax and administrative
obligations for citizens that offer a non-professional
service on an occasional basis. There is no reason
to forbid such activities or to classify all providers
as professionals with all the related obligations.
Bureaucracy for non-professionals engaged in
collaborative consumption should be simplified as
much as possible.
7. Proper tax compliance is essential to counteract
unfair competition and for its positive contribution
to society. In particular, as prosumers continue to
generate micro-incomes from the services they
provide in CC (i.e. microtasks, social eating, P2P
tourism) and as stable jobs are increasingly scarce,
tax on CC activities should be 'fair'. In this sense, we
suggest that taxes and social contributions should
be calculated on an individual basis, according to
the real income earned by the prosumer.
8. Governments should monitor and assess the triple
impact (economic, social and environmental) of
CC in the whole economy, with comprehensive
indicators like those developed during this research,
and look to prevent rebound effects (e.g. creating
cheap hyper-consumption when the stated intention
is to reduce it).
9. Legislators should guarantee the right to
technological innovation even if innovation
challenges the traditional way of doing business, as
new technologies can improve efficiency in favour of
consumers. Current legislation should be reviewed to
accommodate improvements made possible through
technology.
10. And finally, Governments should enforce compliance
with the legal obligations that apply to all CC
participants.

The protocol is based on a scale that quantifies the
sophistication of the item of measurement on a 5-point
hierarchical scale, supported by a qualitative description.
We welcome comments or suggestions about this report and possible
improvements of the indicators here presented. Please contact cc@ocu.org
Annex 1
Legal protocol example
CRITERIA WEIGHT % TYPE OF ITEM
PART I: PRIVACY
Privacy and data protection 66.7 Observational
Cookies and commercial communications 33.3 Observational
Total Part I 100
PART II: LIABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY & RESPONSIBILITY
Legal terms and status of the company 14.3 Observational
Website terms and conditions 21.4 Observational
Liability of the marketplace in the e-service provided to each user 14.3 Observational
Liability of the marketplace in the sharing economy service provided by its users 14.3 Observational
Website terms and conditions in case of conflict 21.4 Observational
Cancellation policy and reputation & responsibility levels 14.3 Observational
Total Part II 100
Example of an item and scale
Select only one answer
Cookies and commercial communication
1. Users are not asked to give their consent for the storage and recovery of data from terminal equipment (“cookies”), nor are they given the
possibility to revoke their consent to receive commercial communications. Or the information is not written in the official national language(s)
of the country in which the platform operates.
2. Users consent for the storage and recovery of data from terminal equipment is made technically easy through the use of suitable browser
parameters, but express confirmation by the user is still required. Users are not given the possibility to revoke their consent to receive
commercial communications.
3. Users consent for the storage and recovery of data from terminal equipment is made technically easy through the use of suitable browser
parameters, but users confirmation is not expressly required. Users are also given the possibility to revoke their consent to receive
commercial communications.
4. Users consent for the storage and recovery of data from terminal equipment is not made technically easy, but their express consent to such
data storage and recovery is still required. Users are also given the possibility to revoke their consent to receive commercial communications.
5. Users consent for the storage and recovery of data from terminal equipment is made technically easy by the platform through the use of
suitable browser parameters although express confirmation is still required by the user. Users are also given the possibility to revoke their
consent to receive commercial communications.
NA. Does not apply

There are two main types of items included:
observational and evaluation. Observational items are
assessed with a hierarchical 5-point scale, where the
observer uses a qualitative description to decide which
point on the scale best described the platform. The
evaluation items are assessed with a 5-point Likert
agreement scale, where the observer agrees or disagrees
with a statement about the platform (see the following
page for examples of each item type).
We welcome comments or suggestions about this report and possible
improvements of the indicators presented. Please contact cc@ocu.org
Annex 2
Netnographic Social
Protocol
PART I: FUNCTIONALITY & USABILITY
Identity and profile building 25 Observational
User status system 20 Observational
Functional interactivity design 20 Observational
Connected services/interconnectivity 15 Observational
It’s easy to find other users and invite new users 2,5 Evaluation
The platform's has facilities for direct communication, e.g. chatting, emailing, comments, rating contents 2,5 Evaluation
The platform has a wide variety of content and services 2,5 Evaluation
It is easy for users to share and exchange content. 2,5 Evaluation
The platform provides good clear and easily understood information about the service's functionality. 2,5 Evaluation
The platform uses graphics/symbols that convey information on the products/services 2,5 Evaluation
Users can customise searches to display only information relevant to them 2,5 Evaluation
The platform enables users to assess the cost and quality information together 2,5 Evaluation
Total Part I 100
PART II: TRUST BUILDING RESOURCES & VIRTUAL REPUTATION
Profile information I: cognitive trust information 20 Observational
Profile information II: emotional trust signals 15 Observational
User identification Resources (how the platform identifies users) 15 Observational
Rating system 15 Observational
Virtual reputation 15 Observational
Reputation, as an important social value in regulating interactions and exchanges, is an important part
of how the platform operates
5 Evaluation
Knowledge exchange, as a way to increase creativity and openness, is an important part of how the
platform operates
5 Evaluation
The platform empowers users, e.g. By promoting independent decision-making (establishing price, timing
of exchange, etc.) And through sharing within the community
5 Evaluation
The platform promotes user trust as a key way to regulate the actions of consumers and providers
(keeping them honest)
5 Evaluation
Total Part II 100

PART III: CODES OF CONDUCT: MONITORING RULES AND POLICIES
Codes of conduct 20 Observational
Block and report 20 Observational
Abuse, fraud or impersonation 30 Observational
The platform has explicit rules of behaviour and cooperative norms. 10 Evaluation
The monitoring rules and policies are prominently displayed, accessible and comprehensive 10 Evaluation
There are self-monitoring mechanisms (e.g. flag button on profile pages, participants can publically post
a review to notify)
10 Evaluation
Total Part III 100
PART IV: SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL MISSIONS: COMMUNITY FOOTPRINT
Geographical reach 15 Observational
Social mission 20 Observational
Environmental mission 20 Observational
The platform actively promotes and invests in local development and activity, e.g. Businesses,
cooperatives
5 Evaluation
The platform promotes collaboration, open exchange, co-responsibility and self-management 5 Evaluation
The platform promotes a more equitable distribution of wealth through horizontal business models and
equality in exchange
5 Evaluation
The platform promotes connections and exchanges between people from different places, backgrounds,
cultures and experiences
5 Evaluation
The platform empowers users by promoting new ways to use their skills and knowledge 5 Evaluation
The platform is actively involved and invests in environmental causes. 10 Evaluation
The platform encourages sustainability through local production (reducing footprint on the delivery of
products…)
10 Evaluation
Total Part IV 100
Example of an observational item and scale
Select only one answer. User identification resources (how the
platform identifies users)
1. None: No verification resources, other than IP logs.
2. Basic: a verified email address is required.
3. Complex: previous plus a verified telephone number is required.
4. Advanced: previous plus the platform allows or requires
verification via credit card.
5. Very advanced: the platform allows ID verification through legal
documents.
Example of an evaluation item and scale
Considering monitoring rules and policies, state whether you agree
or disagree with each of the following statements, where:
1 is strongly disagree, 2 is disagree, 3 is undecided, 4 is agree, and 5 is
strongly agree. Choose 0 if you feel that the item is not applicable.
1. The monitoring rules and policies are prominently displayed,
accessible and comprehensive.
[1 2 3 4 5] [Does not apply 0]
03 Netnographic Social Protocol /

The purpose of this report and the research program
that was carried out is to raise awareness of the utility
of Collaborative Consumption (CC) for consumers and to
measure the impacts of Peer-to-Peer CC on society. The use
of its contents for advertising or commercial purposes is
strictly prohibited. Additionally, the commercial use of the
OCU logo or name is also prohibited, in accordance with
the relevant legislation (Ley General para la Defensa de los
Consumidores y Usuarios, Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007).
Creative commons license: OCU Ediciones SA
NOT FOR
COMMERCIAL USE
"Collaboration or Business?. Collaborative Consumption:
From value for users to a society with values"
by OCU Ediciones SA is licensed under a
Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional License.

Collaboration or business?. Collaborative consumption. From value for users to a society with values - OCU

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Collaboration or business?. Collaborative consumption. From value for users to a society with values - OCU (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Collaboration or business?. Collaborative consumption. From value for users to a society with values - OCU